Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni's lawyers' tempers were rising in court Monday as both sides raised new allegations in their hotly contended case. Baldoni's attorney Bryan Freedman pleaded with the judge to move the case forward as quickly as possible because his client were 'suffering greatly'. But Lively's lawyer Michael Gottlieb vehemently denied the claim that Lively was purposely dragging her heels in the lawsuit, while.

Judge Lewis Liman denied a move from Lively and her husband Ryan Reynolds to gag Team Baldoni following a series of bombshell claims made by his legal team. But Gottlieb said they intend to hit Baldoni with fresh allegations in Lively's sexual harassment case, and insisted that protecting the couple's celebrity friends was going to be 'very important'. Gottlieb told the court during the hearing that they intend to add 'both claims and parties' to a revised complaint which will be filed by Valentine's Day.

Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni's lawyers tempers are rising in court this morning as both sides raise new allegations, DailyMail.com can reveal. Freedman said that the defamation case Baldoni filed against the New York Times in California would be dismissed. During the hearing, Gottlieb attacked Freedman for making statements outside of court which had attacked the ‘character, integrity and truthfulness’ of Lively, as he put it.

The move came after Baldoni updated his own complaint in his $400 million defamation case against the Gossip Girl star which accused Lively of giving The New York Times advanced access to her complaint of sexual harassment during the filming of the movie It Ends With Us. Gottlieb attacked Freedman for making statements outside of court which had attacked the ‘character, integrity and truthfulness’ of Lively.

After complaining, Lively's lawyers were told was that 'we (Lively) started it' with the New York Times article, Gottlieb said. Gottlieb cited an interview People magazine in which Freedman accused Lively of a ‘pattern of bullying’. In another statement Freedman claimed that if Lively really was sexually harassed she wouldn't have returned to the film. A skeptical Judge Liman said:  'isn’t that what’s stated in his complaint?'.

Freedman fired back that the statements had 'not been a one way street' and tried to walk the court through a number made by Lively's lawyers. Gottlieb cited an interview People magazine in which Freedman accused Lively of a ‘pattern of bullying’. Gottlieb said no and that lawyers were 'not supposed to launch attacks on another party’s character'. He added that the leaking of raw footage from It Ends With Us was 'particularly concerning' because it could start an 'arms race' whereby lawyers have to appear in the media to fire back at every disclosure.

'If there’s no guard rails in place….we (the attorneys) have to and go out on shows arguing on shows what a particular document or video means'. Freedman fired back that the statements had 'not been a one way street' and tried to walk the court through a number made by Lively's lawyers. After listening to them, Judge Liman said Freedman 'went a little bit further' than Lively's lawyers. The judge said that he was adopting rules for lawyers known as Rule 3.6 which bars both of them from making extrajudicial statements that could influence the jury.

Gottlieb added that the leaking of raw footage from The Ends With Us was 'particularly concerning' because it could start an 'arms race' whereby lawyers have to appear in the media to fire back at every disclosure. Judge Liman said he was 'hesitant to adopt it' but after both sides agreed to it, he changed his mind. He said: 'My expectation is the parties will comply with their ethical obligations. I don't expect this case to devolve into satellite litigation over the comments of a lawyer.

'Both have said a lot in the pleadings that give the public plenty to feast upon'. Freedman tried to protest and said: 'Not to sound like a four year old fighting a four year old with 'but they started it' but once someone says something it becomes fact, there’s no way to fight against it. 'You start to lose things without the ability to have the court’s adjudication. This was not started by us.'.

Judge Liman also warned that if both sides didn't behave themselves he could move the date of the trial forward from March next year. Judge Liman also warned that if both sides didn't behave themselves he could move the date of the trial forward from March next year. He said: 'I’m not going to do that, I’m convinced the parties need the time for discovery. 'But if it turns out that this ends up being litigated in the press in a way that would prejudice the opportunity of a fair trial…one of the tools the court has is to accelerate the date of the trial.