A legal dispute between Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni's claims of her emotional distress hit the obstacles Tuesday, when a federal judge refused to let Lively dismiss them with her preferred clause, telling the parties to reach an agreement.

The latest dispute between the co-stars of "It's End with Us" for months, they have been caught in a high-profile legal battle, after Bardoni's lawyers demanded Lively's medical and mental health records to defend her claims against emotional distress caused by his intentional and negligence during the filming.

Lively conducted sexual harassment as well as retaliation after Lively's initial complaint accused Baldoni of raising questions about his on-site behavior - Baldoni's lawyers denied the charges. Since then, the two stars have been in a tense legal standoff, each accusing the other of orchestrating a smearing movement.

Rather than providing the medical and mental health records required by the Baldoni team, Levelly made a claim to abandon emotional distress, according to court documents filed Monday. In response, Bardoni's lawyers made her request for "unbiased" on Monday, meaning she could supplement them later. In the court application, Bardoni's team argued that Lively should permanently dismiss her claim if she did not provide the required medical records.

Hours later, in court filings filed by its own court, Lively's team called Baldoni's motion a "false and obviously inappropriate public relations stunts" and asked the court to deny and remove the motion altogether.

On Tuesday morning, U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman, in the Southern District of New York, denied Lively’s request, but wrote that she could file a formal motion to fire without prejudice. Otherwise, Liman wrote that Lively's and Baldoni's teams must agree whether the sacking will be accompanied by bias.

He also denied Baldoni's motion, forcing Lively to provide her medical records, and said the claim was made since Vitality was withdrawing her emotional distress claim.

Liman's ruling urgently pressured to dismiss her claim in any way, as he wrote: "If the claim is not dismissed, the court will prevent vividly providing evidence of any emotional distress."

In a statement, Lively's attorneys Esra Hudson and Mike Gottlieb wrote that Lively made a statement that "because these claims are no longer needed, because they are no longer necessary, she will continue to pursue emotional distress through other lawsuits in the lawsuit, including sexual harassment and retaliation."

"In addition, under California law, Baldoni-Wayfarer's strategy to file retaliation claims has suffered huge damages," Lively's attorney wrote.

(Wayfarer Studios, the production company behind "End With Us" co-founded by Baldoni, is the defendant along with Baldoni.)

"This is exactly where both parties are before the Baldoni-Wayfarer party is eager to make this completely meaningless motion to force it, all in search of another press," Lively's lawyer wrote.

Bardoni's attorney did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Tuesday.

Baldoni filed on Monday argues that Lively tried to avoid providing her medical records while retaining her claims caused by intentional and negligence about emotional distress.

"Ms Lively cannot be both-way," Baldoni's lawyer said in the filing. "If Ms Lively is unwilling to stipulate bias against her IED claims, then the parties to the Wayfarer party will continue to defend them, and she must prescribe medical information and documents here. ”

Baldoni's attorneys seek specialize in the name and address of their health care providers, their treatment notes and signing privacy forms authorized to publish their records. They wrote in a Monday document that Lively "wasted any physician privileges" because of her claim to be emotionally hurt.

Lively's attorneys refuted Baldoni's motion in Monday's response and argued that Lively voluntarily agreed to "kindly" withdraw her emotional distress statement to simplify the case. They added that Bardoni’s team acknowledged that this means their medical record requests will become meaningless.

Lively's filing also claimed that Baldoni's lawyers did not raise objections to her proposal to fire the joint provisions on Monday's call. It claimed that Bardoni’s team was eager to propose “a motion that was clearly written in advance at the moment the telecommunications ended.”

"Almost immediately thereafter, tabloid media began reporting 'special reports' to Ms Lively's "shocking" move, claiming she had 'sensation' lowered her claims and cited extensive claims from the motion," Lively's document said.

In addition to asking the court to deny and remove the motion, Lively's lawyers asked Lehman on Monday to consider sanctions against the opposition "continue to abuse the court's case files."

"The motion was brought to a single audience: the media," Lively's document said. "There's nothing to force this court."

Lively and Baldoni are expected to be tried in March.