Blake Lively Lawsuit Against Justin Baldoni Escalates with Star-Studded Testimony Expected in 2026 Trial
A supposed conflict involving Blake Lively and director/costar Justin Baldoni, stemming from the production of It Ends With Us, escalated into numerous legal actions throughout 2025.
The actress, known for her role in Gossip Girl, initiated the legal proceedings by lodging a formal complaint with the California Civil Rights Department, later taking Baldoni to court for alleged sexual harassment.
Bryan Freedman, Baldoni’s legal representative, retorted by labeling Lively’s accusations as “utterly baseless, scandalous, and deliberately provocative,” subsequently filing a $400 million countersuit against the starlet for the director in January 2025.
Attorneys for Lively proclaimed a “full triumph and absolute exoneration” over Baldoni after his counter-claim was thrown out in June 2025, yet their legal struggle persists. A hearing concerning Lively’s initial lawsuit is scheduled for March 2026 in New York, with her spouse, Ryan Reynolds, close friend Taylor Swift, and additional cast members from It Ends With Us all becoming involved in the proceedings.
The presiding judge had no prior knowledge of Justin Baldoni and Blake Lively before their legal confrontation.
Continue below for a comprehensive chronological overview of the legal dispute.
Lively Submits Formal Accusation Against Baldoni
On December 21, 2024, The New York Times disclosed that Lively had lodged a grievance with the California Civil Rights Department targeting Baldoni. This preliminary filing contained a multitude of charges regarding Baldoni’s purported behavior during the filming of It Ends With Us and an alleged effort to damage Lively’s reputation.
Lively asserted that a gathering took place to discuss “an unwelcoming work atmosphere” on the set of It Ends With Us, attended by her husband, Reynolds. Lively detailed asking for “an end to showing nude videos or pictures of women to Blake, stopping any discussion of Baldoni’s claimed past ‘pornography addiction,’ ceasing conversations about sexual achievements in front of Blake and others, refraining from mentioning cast and crew's private parts, discontinuing questions about Blake’s weight, and no longer bringing up Blake’s deceased father” during this meeting.
It was also claimed that Lively requested “no further inclusion of sex scenes, oral sex, or on-screen climaxes by BL [Blake Lively] beyond the boundaries of the script BL had endorsed upon committing to the film” by Baldoni or other creative personnel for It Ends With Us.
Additionally, Lively accused Baldoni of employing a “public image manipulation” tactic to tarnish her standing, which involved presenting a text message purportedly from his publicist to a studio PR associate, indicating Baldoni’s alleged desire “to feel like [Lively] can be silenced.”
An Additional Grievance
Lively’s legal submission pointed to a grievance made by an anonymous actress from It Ends With Us concerning Baldoni’s behavior on set. Her legal team stated in judicial papers that Lively’s choice to voice apprehensions about Baldoni “was not solely for her benefit, but also for other female cast and crew members, some of whom had already expressed their concerns.”
“Due to Mr. Baldoni’s actions, on May 29, 2023, a different cast member filed a sexual harassment complaint regarding Mr. Baldoni’s ‘crude’ and ‘unsolicited remark[s]’ directed at her and others,” the formal accusation stated.
Lively affirmed that Baldoni “explicitly recognized her worries in written form” and committed to “modify his conduct as required,” even though she later described a further troubling discussion with an actress after that understanding was reached.
“By June 8, 2023, that particular actress communicated to Ms. Lively that ‘apart from anything scripted, I genuinely cannot engage in conversation with Justin whatsoever,’” her legal counsel claimed. “Mr. Baldoni subsequently voiced distrust concerning Ms. Lively’s camaraderie with this actress, as though they were conspiring against him.”
Lively claimed that Baldoni uttered degrading and gender-biased remarks about her and other colleagues during the filming of It Ends With Us, alongside divulging purported information about engaging in sexual activity previously without seeking consent. (Baldoni refuted all accusations of misconduct.)
Baldoni’s Counsel Issues Statement
Immediately following the initial filing, Freedman, Baldoni’s attorney, rejected the validity of the complaint in comments made to Us Weekly. The legal representative implied that the grievance was Lively’s effort to “mend her tarnished image” and “resurface a storyline” suggesting that the making of It Ends With Us was problematic.
Freedman charged Lively with issuing “numerous demands and menaces” throughout the filming of the major movie, such as “threatening to skip set appearances, refusing to promote the movie, which would eventually lead to its failure upon release, if her conditions were not satisfied.”
Initial Reference to Taylor Swift’s Participation
The initial reference to Lively’s acquaintance Swift's connection to the disagreement appeared in a document appended to the complaint by the legal representatives of the It Ends With Us actress. A crisis communications specialist employed by Baldoni reportedly stated in an email dated August 2024 that “we’ve observed minor problems become huge on social media, or major crises have no online impact at all. It’s unpredictable at this point. However, BL [Blake Lively] shares a similar fanbase with TS [Taylor Swift], so we must approach this with utmost seriousness.”
A separate “contingency planning” document compiled by Baldoni’s team suggested that their “group could also consider disseminating stories about the misuse of feminism and how individuals such as Taylor Swift have been alleged to employ these strategies to ‘coerce’ [adversaries] into fulfilling their desires.”
Lively Issues First Public Comment
Issuing her inaugural public comment following the submission of her sexual harassment complaint, Lively characterized her legal initiative as a crucial move towards eradicating unwelcoming workplace conditions within the film industry.
“It is my hope that my legal steps will help expose these malicious reprisal strategies aimed at those who report inappropriate behavior, and will safeguard others who might become targets,” she declared on December 21, 2025.
Baldoni’s Representation Terminated
Senior leadership at the prominent Hollywood talent firm WME opted on December 21, 2024, to cease representing Baldoni subsequent to the sexual harassment claims detailed in Lively’s grievance. Lively, meanwhile, remained a client of WME.
Baldoni’s Accolade Revoked
A representative for the Vital Voices Solidarity Awards declared the withdrawal of an honor bestowed upon Baldoni for his advocacy in support of women’s rights.
“The Voices of Solidarity Award acknowledges exceptional men who have demonstrated bravery and empathy in championing women and girls,” an Instagram post dated December 23, 2025, communicated. “On December 9, 2024, Justin Baldoni received this accolade. On Saturday, December 21, we became aware through media reports of a lawsuit initiated by Blake Lively against Mr. Baldoni, his publicists, and others, which is unsettling and alleges reprehensible behavior. The interactions between Mr. Baldoni and his publicists mentioned in the lawsuit — along with the public relations strategy they suggest — inherently conflict with the principles of Vital Voices and the essence of the Award.”
Updated Statement from Baldoni
Freedman, Baldoni’s legal counsel, issued an updated declaration on December 23, 2024, refuting that the director’s engagement with crisis management firm The Agency Group PR constituted “public opinion manipulation.”
“TAG PR functioned as any typical crisis management company would upon being retained by a client facing threats from two exceptionally influential individuals with boundless means,” Freedman stated. “The routine contingency planning by TAG PR turned out to be redundant, as the public perceived Lively’s personal conduct, interviews, and promotional activities during the film’s publicity tour as unpalatable, reacting naturally to what the press independently noted.”
Freedman charged Lively’s legal representatives with “selectively choosing” text messages exchanged between Baldoni and TAG PR to construct their argument in a New York Times article covering the controversy.
“It is paradoxical that the New York Times, in its endeavor to ‘expose’ a covert public relations campaign, inadvertently furthered Lively’s own questionable PR strategies by releasing private text conversations missing crucial background — precisely the methods she alleges the firm used,” the attorney commented.
Sony Backs Lively
Sony Pictures — the company responsible for distributing It Ends With Us — openly endorsed Lively regarding her contribution to the major film, without making any direct reference to Baldoni.
“Our prior statements have indicated our backing for Blake concerning her involvement with and contributions to the movie. We unequivocally and steadfastly reaffirm that support today,” a Sony spokesperson informed Variety in a December 23, 2024, declaration. “Moreover, we vigorously denounce any assaults on her character. Such assaults are unacceptable within our industry or in a civilized community.”
SAG-AFTRA Commends Lively
The performers' union issued its own announcement on December 23, 2024, to “praise” Lively’s “bravery in addressing concerns of retaliation and harassment, and for her demand for an intimacy coordinator in all scenes featuring nudity or sexually suggestive material.”
“This constitutes a significant measure that contributes to guaranteeing a secure filming environment,” a SAG-AFTRA representative further stated. “Workers are fully entitled to voice their worries or to submit grievances. Retribution for disclosing misbehavior or improper conduct is unlawful and unjust. We all possess the right to be handled with esteem and consideration at work and to operate in a setting devoid of harassment, bias, and reprisal.”
Jenny Slate Addresses Legal Dispute
Jenny Slate, Lively’s fellow cast member from It Ends With Us, spoke out in her defense through a firm statement delivered to NBC’s Today.
“As a colleague and companion of Blake Lively, I express my solidarity with her as she pursues legal steps against individuals alleged to have orchestrated and executed an assault on her standing,” Slate remarked on December 24, 2024. “Blake is a guiding figure, a devoted friend, and a reliable provider of emotional comfort for myself and countless others who are acquainted with and cherish her.”
Justin Baldoni Shares Personal News Amid Blake Lively Controversy: 'Thankful'
She continued, “The disclosures regarding the assault on Blake are profoundly unsettling, alarming, and utterly menacing. I applaud my friend, I respect her courage, and I offer her my unwavering support.”
Baldoni’s Attorney Vows Counter-Action
On December 28, 2024, Freedman informed Deadline that he was preparing a counter-complaint against Lively on behalf of Baldoni.
“I will not disclose the timing or quantity of the lawsuits we are initiating, but once our first legal action is filed, it will astonish everyone who has been swayed by a clearly fabricated account,” the attorney stated. “It will be substantiated by concrete proof and unveil the actual sequence of events.”
Freedman then cautioned, “Across more than three decades of legal practice, I have never witnessed such a degree of morally reprehensible conduct deliberately amplified via media manipulation.”
Baldoni Initiates Legal Action Against ‘The New York Times’
The director initiated a $250 million legal claim against The New York Times concerning its reporting on Lively’s grievance, representing himself, his company Wayfarer, public relations experts Melissa Nathan and Jennifer Abel, It Ends With Us producers Jamey Heath and Steve Saraowitz, and five other individuals. The lawsuit charged Times employees with defamation and misrepresentation of privacy for “selectively extracting” communications and text messages between Baldoni and a crisis public relations agency for their piece titled “We Can Bury Anyone: Inside a Hollywood Smear Machine” penned by journalists Megan Twohey, Mike McIntire, and Julie Tate.
Baldoni’s legal team alleged that the Times contributed to Team Lively’s “calculated and deceptive” campaign to discredit the director, which involved presenting “sexual harassment accusations to claim exclusive authority over all facets of the filming” of It Ends With Us.
“The Times report was almost entirely predicated on Lively’s unsubstantiated and self-benefiting account, adopting it virtually word-for-word while overlooking ample evidence that disputed her assertions and revealed her underlying intentions,” Baldoni’s legal counsel asserted in judicial filings.
‘The New York Times’ Addresses Legal Action
The New York Times maintained the accuracy of its coverage following Baldoni’s $250 million legal claim.
“An autonomous news entity’s function is to pursue information wherever it leads,” a statement from the Times affirmed on December 31, 2024. “Our account was carefully and conscientiously investigated. It drew upon an examination of thousands of original documents, including the text messages and emails that we cite precisely and extensively in the piece. These texts and emails also formed the core of a discrimination accusation lodged in California by Blake Lively against Justin Baldoni and his affiliates.”
A key point of contention between the opposing parties concerned Baldoni’s assertion that The New York Times released its article sooner than initially pledged.
“To clarify certain errors in the lawsuit, while soliciting feedback from Mr. Baldoni and other individuals to be featured in the article, The Times provided the material we intended to release, including mentions of particular text messages and documents, offer further background, and converse with our staff. Mr. Baldoni, Wayfarer, and the other involved parties elected not to engage in any discussions with The Times or address any of the specific text messages or documents, opting instead to email a collective reply, which was printed in its entirety. (Furthermore, they submitted their response to the Times at 11:16 p.m. ET on Dec 20th, not at 2:16 a.m. ET on Dec 21st, contrary to the lawsuit’s claim.)”
A representative for the publication pledged to “forcefully defend” itself against the legal action.
Lively Addresses Baldoni’s Legal Action Against ‘New York Times’
Lively’s representative informed Us that any implication of her conspiring with The New York Times to discredit Baldoni was “patently untrue.”
“This legal action does not alter any aspect of the allegations put forth in Ms. Lively’s California Civil Rights Department Complaint, nor her federal complaint, submitted earlier today,” Lively’s statement on December 31, 2024, asserted. “This lawsuit relies on the demonstrably incorrect assumption that Ms. Lively’s administrative grievance against Wayfarer and others was a deception rooted in a decision ‘not to pursue legal action against Baldoni, Wayfarer,’ and that ‘litigation was never her primary objective.’ As evidenced by the federal complaint Ms. Lively filed earlier today, that interpretation for the Wayfarer lawsuit is unfounded. Although we will not discuss this case in the media, we urge individuals to review Ms. Lively’s complaint completely. We anticipate confronting each of Wayfarer’s accusations in a court of law.”
Lively Files Suit Against Baldoni
The very day Baldoni initiated legal proceedings against The New York Times, Lively filed a lawsuit against him in the Southern District of New York, citing sexual harassment, reprisal, contract violation, intentional infliction of emotional suffering, privacy intrusion, and foregone income. Baldoni’s production company, Wayfarer, alongside public relations professionals Nathan and Abel, were also included in Lively’s legal complaint.
“Prior today, Ms. Lively lodged a federal complaint against Wayfarer Studios and other parties in the Southern District of New York,” Lively’s attorneys informed Us on December 31, 2024. “Ms. Lively had previously submitted her California Civil Rights Department Complaint as a reaction to the punitive actions Wayfarer undertook against her for raising sexual harassment and workplace safety issues. Regrettably, Ms. Lively’s choice to voice her concerns has led to additional reprisal and aggression.”
Their declaration further stated, “As asserted in Ms. Lively’s federal Complaint, Wayfarer and its affiliates have contravened federal and California state statutes by retaliating against her for reporting sexual harassment and occupational safety issues. Presently, the accused parties will face judgment for their behavior in federal court. Ms. Lively has initiated this legal action in New York, where a substantial portion of the pertinent events outlined in the Complaint occurred, but we retain the prerogative to pursue additional proceedings in other locations and legal systems as legally suitable.”
Baldoni Affirms Counter-Litigation Intentions
On January 2, 2025, Freedman informed NBC News that his firm was “definitely” preparing a counter-lawsuit against Lively.
“Our intention is to publish every text message exchanged between the two individuals,” Freedman told the media source. “We desire for the truth to be known. We want the pertinent documents to be accessible. We want the public to form their judgments based on tangible proof.”
During the same discussion, Freedman refuted Lively’s charge that Baldoni orchestrated a campaign to defame her in collaboration with a crisis management agency.
“Absolutely not,” he stated. “Justin Baldoni, from the very beginning, expressed, ‘I don’t wish to take any adverse action against her. I don’t want to cause her harm.’”
Lively Condemns Baldoni’s ‘Aggressions’
Lively’s legal representatives criticized Freedman’s recent public remarks in a statement to Us and maintained that her lawsuit was founded upon “grave allegations of sexual harassment and punitive action.”
“This is not a ‘dispute’ stemming from ‘artistic disagreements’ or a ‘conflicting accounts’ scenario,” the attorneys’ declaration on January 7, 2025, conveyed. “As asserted in Ms. Lively’s complaint, and as we will demonstrate in court, Wayfarer [Studios] and its affiliates engaged in illegal, vindictive astroturfing against Ms. Lively merely for attempting to safeguard herself and others on a film production. Furthermore, their reaction to the lawsuit has been to initiate further aggressions against Ms. Lively since her initial filing.”
Lively’s legal counsel elaborated, “Sexual harassment and punitive measures are prohibited in all professional environments and sectors. A common strategy to divert attention from accusations of such wrongdoing is to ‘fault the complainant’ by implying they provoked the behavior, were responsible for it, misinterpreted motives, or even falsified information. Another frequent approach is to swap the roles of the victim and perpetrator, suggesting the alleged offender is the true aggrieved party. These ideas validate and diminish claims of grave misconduct.”
Justin Baldoni Reflects on ‘Challenging Year’ in 2024 Podcast Excerpt
Their statement concluded, “Crucially, media declarations do not serve as a legitimate defense against Ms. Lively’s legal assertions. We will persist in pursuing her claims in federal court, where legal principles, not exaggeration and intimidation, dictate the outcome.”
Freedman informed Us on January 7, 2025, that the latest remarks from Lively’s legal team constituted a distortion of the actual events.
“It is profoundly paradoxical that Blake Lively alleges Justin Baldoni is exploiting the media, while her own associates masterminded this cruel assault by furnishing the New York Times with severely altered documents even before submitting the formal complaint,” he stated. “We are making public all available proof that will reveal a consistent pattern of intimidation and threats aimed at assuming control of the film. This will not be unexpected, as, in line with her previous conduct, Blake Lively leveraged others to convey these menaces and coerce her way into achieving her desires. We possess all the documentary evidence!”
The ‘Nicepool’ Disagreement
Us reported on January 14, 2025, that Freedman dispatched a litigation preservation directive to The Walt Disney Company’s Bob Iger and Marvel Studio’s Kevin Feige, instructing them to “retain all pertinent existing documents and data” related to a potential legal claim. Freedman specifically requested that Disney and Marvel Studios safeguard records concerning whether the character “Nicepool” in Reynolds’ 2024 film Deadpool & Wolverine was designed to caricature Baldoni.
“[The request pertains] to or indicates a purposeful effort to deride, torment, disparage, frighten, or intimidate Baldoni via the ‘Nicepool’ character,” Freedman penned. “It is essential for Marvel to implement all feasible measures to retain this data until explicitly instructed otherwise.”
Baldoni’s Production Company Takes Legal Action Against Lively
On January 16, 2025, Wayfarer Studios, Baldoni’s firm, initiated a $400 million lawsuit against Lively, her spouse, Reynolds, and her public relations representative, Leslie Sloane. They alleged Lively attempted to “cast Baldoni as the true antagonist in her narrative” to compensate for “insensitive” marketing of her hair care and beverage items simultaneously with the debut of a movie addressing domestic abuse.
The legal action charged Lively with implementing a “control-seizing strategy” on It Ends With Us arising from artistic disagreements with Baldoni, alongside numerous allegations regarding her readiness to perform and purported disparaging remarks on set. He asserted Lively coerced other It Ends With Us cast members to “avoid” him once their creative conflicts began.
“This lawsuit represents a legal undertaking supported by an abundant volume of unaltered evidence illustrating Blake Lively and her team’s deceitful endeavor to undermine Justin Baldoni, his associates, and their respective enterprises by circulating heavily altered, unverified, novel, and fabricated information to the press,” Freedman informed Us. “It is evident, given our complete readiness to furnish all comprehensive text messages, emails, video recordings, and other documentary proof exchanged between the parties in real-time, that this is a conflict she will not triumph in and will undoubtedly lament. Blake Lively was either profoundly misinformed by her team or deliberately and knowingly distorted the facts.”
Freedman stated to Us that the objective of the legal action was to ensure Lively would “never again be permitted to exploit genuine victims of actual harassment merely for her personal reputational advantage, at the cost of those lacking influence.”
Taylor Swift’s Text Correspondence
Within his legal complaint, Baldoni’s legal team unveiled a text message from the director to Lively, which appeared to allude to her friend Swift and Reynolds offering their opinions on the rooftop sequence of It Ends With Us.
“Today I was refining the rooftop scene, and I truly appreciate your contributions. It genuinely aids [sic] significantly,” he reportedly messaged. “It renders it considerably more engaging and captivating. (And I would have felt that sentiment even without Ryan and Taylor). You possess exceptional talent in every respect. Truly enthusiastic and [sic] thankful to collaborate on this.”
Lively Addresses Baldoni’s Legal Action
Lively denounced Wayfarer’s legal claim as a “failing” approach and characterized the lawsuit as “yet another instance from the aggressor’s manual.”
“This narrative is ancient: A female voices concerns with undeniable proof of sexual harassment and reprisal, and the perpetrator tries to blame the aggrieved party. This phenomenon is termed DARVO by specialists: Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender,” Lively’s spokespersons informed Us on January 16, 2025. “Wayfarer has chosen to deploy the substantial means of its billionaire co-founder to release press releases, initiate unfounded lawsuits, and issue legal threats to hinder the public’s comprehension that their actions constitute retribution against sexual harassment accusations.”
Her legal team charged Baldoni with “attempting to redirect the story towards Ms. Lively by fabricating claims that she usurped creative authority and distanced the cast from Mr. Baldoni.”
“The proof will reveal that the cast and others experienced their own adverse interactions with Mr. Baldoni and Wayfarer. The proof will further indicate that Sony requested Ms. Lively to supervise Sony’s version of the movie, which they subsequently chose for release and achieved significant acclaim,” they noted. “Their reaction to sexual harassment claims: she desired it, it is her responsibility. Their rationale for why this occurred to her: consider her attire. In essence, while the aggrieved party concentrates on the mistreatment, the perpetrator centers on the victim. The tactic of assailing the woman is a desperate one, it fails to disprove the facts in Ms. Lively’s grievance, and it will be unsuccessful.”
Baldoni’s Attorney Upholds Legal Action
On January 18, 2025, Freedman issued a statement to Deadline, contesting Lively’s portrayal of Baldoni’s lawsuit. The lawyer asserted that his legal filing contained “nearly 200 pages of irrefutable evidence” that “dismantled” Lively’s “defamation campaign” conducted with The New York Times.
“Blake and her legal counsel have only one odious shift remaining, and that involves intensifying the offensively false sexual accusations against Mr. Baldoni,” Freedman stated.
Baldoni’s Seldom Remark
On January 17, 2025, the director of It Ends With Us was observed at Los Angeles International Airport, accompanied by his daughter Maiya, son Maxwell, and his wife, Emily.
When questioned about his well-being, Baldoni responded: “We are thankful to be surrounded by family, truly. We are blessed with wonderful friends, family, and our beliefs.”
Behind-the-Scenes Footage from ‘It Ends With Us’ Made Public
Freedman disseminated a 10-minute segment of production footage from It Ends With Us, which allegedly depicted Baldoni and Lively engaging in amiable conversation between takes of a romantic sequence. Within the video, Baldoni commends Lively on her marital union with Reynolds, and she playfully comments on transferring her “body makeup” onto her costar as they embraced for the scene.
“Ms. Lively’s grievance asserts that during a slow dance montage being filmed by Mr. Baldoni and Ms. Lively, Mr. Baldoni acted improperly. The subsequent videos recorded on May 23, 2023, unequivocally challenge Ms. Lively’s description of his conduct,” Freedman informed Us in a statement on January 21, 2025. “The specific scene was intended to portray the two characters developing affection and desiring intimacy. Both performers are plainly behaving entirely within the parameters of the scene and exhibiting reciprocal deference and expertise. These constitute all three filmed versions of the segment.”
Lively’s Legal Counsel Denounces Release of ‘It Ends With Us’ Footage
Lively’s legal representatives rejected Baldoni’s dissemination of behind-the-scenes material from It Ends With Us as a mere “ploy” that failed to invalidate their client’s assertions.
“The footage depicts Mr. Baldoni consistently moving closer to Ms. Lively, attempting to kiss her, kissing her on the forehead, pressing his face and mouth against her neck, lightly touching her lip with his thumb, tenderly stroking her, commenting on her scent, and conversing with her outside of their roles,” her legal team stated. “Each of these instances was spontaneously performed by Mr. Baldoni without any prior consultation or agreement and in the absence of an intimacy coordinator. Mr. Baldoni held positions not only as Ms. Lively’s costar, but also as the director, the head of the studio, and Ms. Lively’s superior.”
Lively’s legal counsel proposed that any individual who has been “subjected to unwelcome physical contact in a professional setting” would identify with the actress’s conduct depicted in the video.
“They will perceive her efforts at humor intended to ward off the unsolicited contact,” her legal representatives contended. “No female employee ought to be compelled to employ protective tactics to prevent unwanted physical interaction from their employer without their agreement.”
Their statement concluded, “The case is currently undergoing active legal proceedings in federal court. Distributing this video to the press, instead of offering it as testimony in court, exemplifies another morally dubious effort to sway public opinion. It also represents a continuation of their campaign of harassment and reprisal. While their attention is on fabricating media narratives, our focus remains on the judicial process. We are persisting in our endeavors to compel Mr. Baldoni and his affiliates to respond in court, under oath, rather than through staged media spectacles.”
Court Hearing Schedule Determined
On January 27, 2025, Judge Lewis J. Liman, from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, declared that the trial involving Baldoni and Lively was slated to commence on March 9, 2026, provided they did not resolve their disagreement prior to that date.
Lively and Reynolds Attempt to Have Baldoni’s Counter-Claim Dismissed
On January 30, 2025, the pair petitioned a federal judge to throw out Baldoni’s counter-claim. Lively further sought to prevent Freedman from being able to question her under oath as part of their ongoing legal dispute.
Absence of Arbitration
In an unusual display of consensus, legal representatives for Baldoni and Lively submitted a joint correspondence to Judge Liman on January 30, 2025, indicating their mutual “agreement that talks of resolution would be premature” at that juncture. Judge Liman eventually approved their plea to bypass standard mediation procedures, as Lively was poised to submit an “updated grievance shortly.”
Baldoni Unveils Online Platform Regarding Lawsuit
Despite widespread public grievances from Lively and her legal team, Freedman proceeded with establishing a website dedicated to the case on February 1, 2025. The site — accessible via “thelawsuitinfo.com” — commenced operations featuring an extensive 224-page “Revised Complaint” outlining Baldoni’s allegations against Lively, along with a 168-page PDF presenting a chronological account of their disagreement.
Among the evidence showcased on the website was a text message where Reynolds purportedly referred to Baldoni as a “person of integrity,” in addition to further exchanges between the director and Lively concerning It Ends With Us’ memorable rooftop sequence. The platform also displayed an alleged draft message by Reynolds and Lively, wherein they accepted responsibility for the widely criticized marketing of It Ends With Us.
“Justin and his associates are entitled to vindicate themselves with factual information,” Baldoni’s attorney Freedman informed Us regarding the website. “And this is precisely what we will persist in demonstrating with the forthcoming website, which will feature all communications and pertinent videos that directly invalidate her assertions.”
Monetary Ramifications
At a pretrial meeting on February 3, 2025, Freedman disclosed that Baldoni and other individuals implicated in Lively’s lawsuit had been “financially and emotionally crushed” by the ongoing legal action.
“Without resorting to childish ‘you started it’ arguments, in these types of situations, an assertion, once made, often becomes accepted as fact, leaving no effective means to challenge it,” Freedman stated to the court.
In a separate declaration, Lively’s attorney Michael Gottlieb contended that the consequences of Baldoni’s allegations had been “ruinous” for the actress’s personal and professional life.
Lively Faced Legal Action from Crisis Communications Company
On February 5, 2025, Jed Wallace and his firm, Street Relations Inc. — a crisis public relations agency mentioned in Lively’s preliminary complaint against Baldoni but reportedly omitted from her subsequent lawsuit — initiated a legal claim against the actress. Wallace asserted that the “harm was inflicted” merely by Lively associating him with the It Ends With Us controversy.
Wallace asserted that Lively incorrectly implicated him in assisting crisis management firm TAG PR with “their illegal punitive online offensive.” He claimed his company sustained millions in damages, along with over a million dollars in anticipated financial setbacks for Street Relations Inc.
Lively’s legal representatives countered by stating to Us: “Another day, a different jurisdiction, another nine-figure legal action aiming to drive Ms. Lively ‘into ruin’ for addressing sexual harassment and reprisal. This is more than a mere media spectacle — it is clear retribution in response to the accusations detailed in a sexual harassment and retaliation grievance Ms. Lively lodged with the California Civil Rights Department. Although this lawsuit will be thrown out, we are content that Mr. Wallace has at last come forward, and he too will be held responsible in federal court.”
Call Logs Requested Via Subpoena
On February 13, 2025, Us verified that Lively’s legal counsel dispatched subpoenas to AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile, requesting mobile phone data for Baldoni, producer Jamey Heath, Wayfarer Studios co-founder Steve Sarowitz, and Baldoni’s publicists Abel and Nathan.
“Mobile phone data associated with all the individual defendants will reveal the complete network of persons engaged in the defamation effort against Ms. Lively,” a Lively spokesperson clarified to Us. “Such documentation will furnish crucial and undeniable proof concerning not only the individuals involved, but also the timing, location, and methodology of their retaliatory scheme’s formation and execution.”
Freedman retorted by informing Us that subpoenas “constitute a regular component of legal proceedings” before denouncing Team Lively’s most recent demand.
“What is remarkable is the extent of what the Lively Parties are requesting. They are demanding access to all call records, text messages, data logs, and even live location data for the previous 2.5 years, irrespective of who sent or received them, or their content,” he asserted. “This extensive exploratory demand indicates their frantic search for any factual support for their demonstrably untrue allegations. They will discover nothing.”
Reynolds Lightens Mood About Case on ‘SNL’
Both Reynolds and Lively were present at the Saturday Night Live 50th anniversary celebration in New York City on February 16, 2025, an occasion where the Deadpool star humorously addressed the couple’s legal predicament.
In a portion of the show where Amy Poehler and Tina Fey conversed with famous personalities in the studio audience, the iconic SNL figures inquired about Reynolds’ condition.
“[I’m doing] excellent. Why, what information have you received?” Reynolds responded as the camera quickly shifted to Lively, who wore an impassive look.
Baldoni’s Attorney Denounces ‘SNL’ Remark
Freedman found no humor in Reynolds’ jest at the SNL 50th anniversary event when questioned about it on the “Hot Mics With Billy Bush” podcast on February 17, 2025.
“I am, quite honestly, unfamiliar with anyone whose spouse has faced sexual harassment and has subsequently made light of such a circumstance. I cannot recall any instance of such behavior,” the attorney commented. “Therefore, I was taken aback.”
Fresh Allegations Against Baldoni
Subsequent to the January 30 pretrial meeting, Lively submitted an updated complaint to a New York court on February 18, 2025, featuring additional charges against Baldoni. A significant disclosure within Lively’s complaint pertained to new information regarding purported workplace mistreatment that other female collaborators on It Ends With Us allegedly endured from Baldoni. (The unnamed individual is not directly identified in Lively’s revised complaint.)
The updated judicial records charged Wayfarer Studios with initiating a “sham” inquiry into sexual harassment claims against Baldoni, owing to the director’s continued affiliation with the company.
“The revised complaint outlines the supporting evidence that reinforces Blake’s initial worries regarding sexual harassment and retaliation, indicating that (1) Justin Baldoni and Jamey Heath caused unease for other women on set; and (2) other women confided in Blake about their discomfort and apprehension of coming forward, and their anxiety over the ongoing public animosity,” a representative for Lively informed Us in a declaration. “The new submission also details that a Sony official discussed the issues with Baldoni, and that Baldoni replied, including by contacting one of the other female complainants to assure her that he acknowledged her concerns and pledged to modify his behavior.”
Lively asserts that Baldoni “failed to fulfill that commitment” to modify his actions. Lively claims Baldoni instead opted to “engage a crisis management group, specialists in digital manipulation, legal professionals, and utilized these resources to devise and carry out the defamation campaign.”
“By acting thus, Blake has contended, Baldoni aimed for a scenario where if she or any other woman publicized their complaints, they would be met with disbelief,” Lively’s representative concluded.
Baldoni Addresses Latest Claims
On February 19, 2025, Freedman characterized Lively’s updated grievance as “unimpressive” and again criticized Reynolds for making light of the lawsuit on SNL.
“Our clients have approached this matter and these concerns with utmost gravity, despite the public jesting from the plaintiff and her spouse,” he informed Us. “Her unimpressive amended complaint is replete with unsupported rumors from anonymous individuals who are clearly no longer prepared to come forward or openly endorse her assertions. Given that written records are immutable and human testimony can be fallible, the forthcoming sworn statements from those who initially backed Ms. Lively’s fabricated claims and those who witnessed her conduct will be revelatory. What is genuinely troubling here is Ms. Lively’s absence of tangible proof.”
Lively and Reynolds Request Enhanced Safeguards
On February 20, 2025, Lively and Reynolds filed a legal petition seeking a more stringent protective order in their favor. The couple contended in judicial filings that “further safeguards” were necessary because they had experienced violent threats owing to their conflict with Baldoni.
“As outlined in Ms. Lively’s Amended Complaint, Ms. Lively, her relatives, other ensemble members, various factual witnesses, and individuals who have publicly voiced their backing for Ms. Lively have been recipients of violent, offensive, discriminatory, and menacing messages,” their legal team asserted.
Team Baldoni informed Us that they did not endorse any individual transmitting menacing communications on his behalf.
“The reception of violent messages from unidentified sources is detestable,” his legal representatives pronounced. “When private individuals were unjustly accused of misconduct by Lively and her paid associates, they endured persistent death threats and unwelcome visits to their private residences, where young children live, subsequent to their addresses being revealed in her initial complaints. No one should be subjected to such an ordeal, particularly private citizens who lack the resources for personal security. We do not tolerate hazardous speech directed at anyone, regardless of the circumstances.”
Lively’s Public Relations Agent Requests Exclusion from Litigation
On February 20, 2025, Sloane, Lively’s public relations manager, officially petitioned a New York federal court to exclude her firm, Vision PR, from Baldoni’s counter-claim. She contended that her company’s inclusion in the legal entanglement was a “diversionary tactic” intended to draw attention away from Lively’s sexual harassment charges against Baldoni.
Dispute Over Publicly Accessible Information
On February 25, 2025, Baldoni petitioned Judge Liman to prevent Lively’s effort to implement an “Attorney’s Eyes Only” condition in the lawsuit, which would restrict the disclosure of specific confidential data to the public during the evidence-gathering phase.
Mitchell Schuster, Baldoni’s lawyer, voiced astonishment at Lively’s attempt to “obstruct public access to significant and pertinent evidence,” considering her attorney’s prior public remarks on the gravity of her sexual harassment lawsuit. He implied Lively sought to leverage the court filing to “restore her damaged reputation through audacious pronouncements to the media.”
“Ms. Lively does not genuinely believe that any information is of such a ‘personally delicate character’ that its revelation to the parties ‘would unduly infringe upon [her] privacy entitlements,’” Schuster asserted.
Lively’s attorney Gottlieb sharply criticized Team Baldoni for exhibiting “indifferent neglect and disrespect towards a woman championing fundamental workplace safeguards against sexual harassment” through its legal communication. He also denounced “some digital content creators” for “echo[ing] the Wayfarer Parties’ narrative” with deceptive assertions about Lively.
Lively’s Latest Crisis Communications Specialist
On February 28, 2025, a representative for the actress verified to Us that she enlisted crisis public relations manager Nick Shapiro for counsel on the ongoing legal matter. Shapiro formerly held the position of the CIA’s deputy chief of staff and advised former director John Brennan.
“The legal team representing Ms. Lively engaged Mr. Shapiro to consult on the public relations strategy for the active sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit currently underway in the Southern District of New York,” Lively’s legal counsel stated.
Judicial Decision on Confidentiality Order
Judge Liman on March 13, 2025, partially approved Lively’s petition for increased safeguards. The verdict stipulated that specific case documents would be restricted to attorney-to-attorney circulation only.
“Today, the Court denied the Wayfarer Parties’ grievances and established the necessary safeguards to guarantee the unimpeded exchange of investigative material, devoid of any danger of intimidating witnesses or compromising any person’s safety,” a Lively spokesperson informed Us in a declaration. “With this directive enacted, Ms. Lively will advance through the discovery phase to procure further evidence that will validate her assertions in Court.”
Freedman, Baldoni’s attorney, responded: “We completely concur with the Court’s judgment to offer limited protections for categories like confidential mental health records and personal safety protocols, which have never been a concern for us. This contrasts with Ms. Lively’s excessively sweeping demand for documents spanning a 2 [and a half] year duration, which the court appropriately annulled.”
Ryan Reynolds Seeks Dismissal from Case
Judicial filings secured by Us on March 18, 2025, revealed Reynolds’ request to be dropped from Baldoni’s counter-claim, asserting that the director failed to “pinpoint any purportedly defamatory declaration” uttered by the performer.
“Mr. Baldoni’s entire legal argument seems to hinge on Mr. Reynolds reportedly referring to Mr. Baldoni privately as a ‘predator,’ however, the issue is that such a statement does not constitute defamation unless they can demonstrate Mr. Reynolds did not genuinely believe it to be true,” Reynolds’ lawyers Gottlieb and Hudson informed Us. “The complaint makes no such assertion, and conversely, the allegations within the complaint imply that Mr. Reynolds sincerely perceives Mr. Baldoni as a predator.”
Reynolds’ representative charged Baldoni with assembling “a catalog of complaints aiming to discredit Mr. Reynolds for embodying the persona Mr. Baldoni has falsely cultivated, that of a man ‘secure enough to heed’ the women in his life.”
Baldoni Retorts to Reynolds
Freedman charged Reynolds with persistent “abuse of his considerable influence” through his attempts to withdraw from the legal action.
“Mr. Reynolds was a key player in the plot, slandering Justin throughout Hollywood, coercing WME into terminating Justin as a client, and seeking to ruin Justin’s career by any means,” Baldoni’s attorney informed Us on March 19, 2025. “He has been deeply implicated in this defamation campaign targeting Justin and the Wayfarer team from its inception.”
Lively Seeks to Invalidate Baldoni’s Counter-Claim
The former Gossip Girl star adopted a legal strategy akin to Reynolds, petitioning a judge on March 20, 2025, to discard Baldoni’s multi-million dollar legal action. Her legal representatives asserted that the lawsuit constituted “a grave misuse of the judicial system” and “had no standing in federal court.”
“California legal statutes now explicitly forbid suing individuals who elect to speak out against sexual harassment or reprisal, whether through legal action or media statements,” Lively’s attorneys Gottlieb and Hudson informed Us. “This unfounded and punitive lawsuit directly confronts three legal impediments, encompassing litigation, fair reporting, and sexual harassment immunities, the latter of which includes a compulsory cost-shifting clause that will oblige parties such as … Wayfarer Studios, and others who filed baseless defamation claims against Ms. Lively, to pay compensation. Stated differently, in a significant self-inflicted wound, the Wayfarer Parties’ endeavor to sue Ms. Lively ‘into ruin’ has only generated increased legal responsibility for them, and rightly so, considering their conduct.”
Freedman criticized Lively’s most recent legal tactic, labeling it “among the most repulsive instances of exploiting our judicial framework.”
“Strict regulations are established to safeguard the innocent and empower individuals to legitimately protect themselves,” Baldoni’s attorney countered. “Legislation is not intended to be manipulated and tailored by influential elites to suit their individual objectives. As we declared yesterday in reaction to Mr. Reynolds’ equally timid actions, we will persist in holding Ms. Lively responsible for her genuinely malicious deeds, which involve falsely accusing my clients of harassment and reprisal. Her fabricated assertions will be rapidly discredited as the discovery process advances, readily disproven by concrete, documentary evidence.”
Baldoni Includes Public Relations Professional in Legal Action
Baldoni modified his legal complaint to incorporate Stephanie Jones, whose public relations firm formerly employed Abel, his erstwhile crisis management specialist. His attorneys claimed that Jones acquired Abel’s professional mobile device and transferred it to Team Lively, who subsequently extracted emails and text messages for their legal proceedings.
“It is irrefutable that Stephanie Jones set in motion this disastrous chain of events by infringing upon fundamental privacy rights, as well as any lingering confidence her clients possessed,” Freedman stated to Us on March 21, 2025. “Having a history of instigating problematic situations for departing clients, Ms. Jones spitefully divulged communications from the phone she improperly seized from her own associate to her confederate Leslie Sloane, directly following Jones’s dismissal for cause by Wayfarer due to her own improper conduct.”
Baldoni’s legal action came after Jones had initiated a lawsuit against Abel, Baldoni, and other parties. In her complaint, Jones charged them with masterminding a purported defamation campaign against Lively
Jones’ spokesperson Kristin Tahler informed Us: “Abel, Nathan, Baldoni, and their fellow defendants endeavored to reach these results through intimidation, misrepresentation, and direct defamation. These points are corroborated by numerous messages included in the lawsuit we submitted a month prior and cannot be convincingly challenged. Lacking factual support or proof, we observe a predictable pattern — defame our client, culminating in what amounts to fictitious allegations presented as the counter-claims filed yesterday.”
Baldoni Justifies Legal Action Against Reynolds
On April 3, 2025, Baldoni’s legal team formally submitted documents opposing Reynolds’ removal from their lawsuit. They characterized Reynolds as an “accomplice” in the defamation campaign and indicated the existence of “sufficient evidence” to justify his inclusion in the legal action.
“The primary conclusion from the Wayfarer Parties’ challenge to Ryan’s motion to dismiss their lawsuit is that they at last acknowledge the clear flaws in their grievance,” Reynolds’ representative informed Us in reply. “They again assert defamation without specifying the defamed party, the precise statements made, or how anyone incurred actual damage.”
They continued, “In contrast to Mr. Baldoni, who cultivated a public image of being a man ‘secure enough to heed’ the women in his life, Ryan Reynolds genuinely embodies that quality and will persist in supporting his spouse as she confronts the individuals who not only subjected her to harassment but subsequently exacted retribution. Under New York law, California law, and indeed in every legal system across the United States, this lawsuit not only collapses but could also lead to the Wayfarer Parties being responsible for Ryan’s expenses and legal fees for initiating such an unfounded case to begin with.”
‘Total Destruction’ Tactic
On April 10, 2025, Lively’s legal counsel Hudson and Gottlieb provided a statement to Us, alleging that Baldoni’s faction employed “all-out legal warfare” to deter individuals from submitting sexual harassment grievances. The two attorneys posited that Team Baldoni was “dismantling” legal safeguards for complainants through their courtroom strategies.
“Mr. Baldoni has transitioned from capitalizing on a brand dedicated to validating and empowering women, to spearheading efforts to dismantle the very legislation that shields women who report sexual assault, harassment, and discrimination,” they informed Us. “California’s sexual harassment privilege, AB 933, was implemented to prevent individuals who commit sexual harassment from misusing defamation lawsuits to silence their accusers.”
Baldoni’s attorney Freedman replied that Lively was the one who had utilized “deliberate maneuvers initially to coerce and influence” others to oppose his client.
“Ms. Lively and her influential Hollywood acquaintances cannot obstruct my clients from exercising their constitutional entitlement to appeal to the court to exonerate them from her fabricated and damaging allegations,” Freedman further stated. “Ms. Lively’s objective is to establish a perilous precedent by denying my clients access to legal recourse and penalizing them for pursuing justice, a right safeguarded by the First Amendment.”
Marvel Addresses Baldoni’s Legal Action
Having been drawn into the disagreement because of the “Nicepool” character in Reynolds’ film Deadpool & Wolverine, Marvel Studios on April 29, 2025, petitioned Judge Liman to “annul the subpoena directed at Marvel” and issue a “confidentiality order forbidding the revelation of Marvel’s proprietary documents” concerning upcoming MCU plot details.
“The demanded papers are especially sensitive as they concern the evolution of a character within a current film franchise,” their correspondence to the court stated. “Marvel has largely achieved the MCU’s triumph by weaving together narratives, story arcs, and figures throughout its various works, encompassing ‘cross-over’ occurrences and follow-up films. The potential inclusion and manner of such components in forthcoming, unreleased productions garners considerable public attention, and Marvel rigorously protects this data.”
Baldoni’s legal representative responded: “My firm communicated with Marvel’s legal counsel by phone regarding the objections, and despite our sincere efforts to address Marvel’s alleged worries concerning confidentiality and pertinence, Marvel’s counsel intervened, declining to participate in that conversation.”
“Instead, Marvel’s counsel intervened, asserting he merely wished to ascertain which documents the Wayfarer Parties ‘truly’ required, irrespective of the Subpoena’s mandate for all records relating to: (a) the conception, evolution, alteration, or depiction of Ryan Reynolds’ ‘Nicepool’ character from Deadpool & Wolverine; and (b) Justin Baldoni,” Freedman added.
Wayfarer Foundation Ceases Operations
On May 6, 2025, Baldoni’s philanthropic Wayfarer Foundation declared its closure, citing its co-founder’s ongoing conflict with Lively.
“Across the last four years, Wayfarer Foundation has aided numerous recipient organizations in achieving their objectives,” co-founder Sarowitz conveyed through Instagram. “I am immensely proud of the influence this entity has generated and profoundly thankful for our employees, leadership, benefactors, and collaborators.”
According to Sarowitz, the Wayfarer Foundation promptly commenced “the procedure for phasing out the Foundation.”
“We intend to fulfill all our existing grant obligations as we meticulously conclude operations over the coming weeks,” he pledged. “Despite the Wayfarer Foundation’s cessation, my individual dedication to philanthropy persists robustly, and I am resolved to effect societal change through its continuous purpose and activities.”
Lively Scheduled to Give Testimony
In a surprising disclosure, Lively’s attorney Gottlieb informed People on May 8, 2025, that the actress intended to give evidence in her 2026 court case against Baldoni.
“The pivotal opportunity for a claimant to recount their experience is during a trial,” Gottlieb stated. “We anticipate this will hold true here [with Lively]. Consequently, we naturally expect her to serve as a witness in her proceedings. Undoubtedly, she will provide testimony.”
Lively’s Attorney Criticizes Potential Taylor Swift Subpoena
Gottlieb also leveraged his conversation with People to dissuade Team Baldoni from issuing subpoenas to Lively’s friend Swift, and her husband, Reynolds, for their 2026 trial.
“It remains entirely uncertain what accusations or counter-arguments, if any, these prominent figures … have any connection to whatsoever,” he lamented.
He further contended: “This legal action focuses on the experiences of Blake Lively when she brought forth allegations of sexual harassment on the set. It is not about the selection process of music for the movie. Nor is it about fictitious Marvel characters featured in Deadpool films.”
Taylor Swift Issued with Legal Summons
Team Baldoni acted on its earlier warning by officially serving Swift with a subpoena related to the 2026 trial. Swift’s representative asserted that the summons lacked merit because the vocalist “never appeared on the set of” It Ends With Us, nor did she engage in “casting or artistic judgments.”
“She did not compose the film’s music, she never reviewed an edited version, or provided any comments on the movie,” her representative informed Us on May 9, 2025. “She did not even watch It Ends With Us until several weeks after its public debut, and spent 2023 and 2024 touring worldwide with the most massive concert series ever.”
Swift’s representative reaffirmed that the sole link the musical artist had to It Ends With Us was granting permission for her track “My Tears Ricochet” to be featured in the hit movie.
“Considering her participation merely involved licensing a song for the movie, a common practice shared by 19 other artists, this document subpoena is crafted to exploit Taylor Swift’s renown to attract public attention through sensationalized headlines, rather than centering on the lawsuit’s actual merits,” her representative maintained.
Swift appealed to the court to disregard Team Baldoni’s subpoena on May 13, 2025.
Baldoni Resumes Social Media Activity on Instagram
Following rumors that Team Lively was investigating his financial history, Baldoni resumed his social media presence after a five-month absence to observe Mother’s Day.
“My mother instilled faith in us. My wife embodies it completely. Our children are flourishing within the sanctuary of that affection,” he posted on Instagram on May 11, 2025, accompanying a family picture. “Warm wishes for Mother’s Day to everyone.”
Taylor Swift Excluded from Legal Proceedings
On May 22, 2025, an insider with knowledge of the situation informed Us that a legal summons for Swift was discreetly withdrawn because “details were willingly furnished” to Baldoni’s legal representatives.
“We are gratified that Justin Baldoni and the Wayfarer Parties have retracted their bothersome subpoenas issued to Taylor Swift and her legal practice,” Team Lively declared in a statement. “We endorsed the endeavors of Taylor’s team to nullify these improper subpoenas aimed at her counsel and we will persist in defending any third party who is unfairly subjected to harassment or intimidation during these proceedings.”
They proceeded, “The Baldoni and Wayfarer group has sought to place Taylor Swift, an individual who has motivated tens of millions worldwide, at the core of this legal matter from its inception. Capitalizing on Taylor Swift’s fame was the initial strategy detailed in Melissa Nathan’s contingency planning document, and it continues presently. When compelled to provide justification in federal court, they relented. Eventually, they will exhaust their diversions from the genuine allegations of sexual harassment and reprisal they confront.”
Baldoni’s Legal Action Terminated
On June 9, 2025, Judge Liman formally approved Lively and Reynolds’ petition to discard Baldoni’s $400 million counter-claim, and simultaneously dismissed Baldoni’s defamation lawsuit against The New York Times. The judge did permit Baldoni to resubmit with revised assertions by June 23, 2025.
Lively’s legal representatives characterized Judge Liman’s ruling as “an absolute triumph and a full exoneration” for her position.
“As we have asserted from the outset, this ‘$400 million’ legal action was a deception, and the Court clearly recognized it,” Team Lively informed Us in a declaration. “We anticipate the subsequent phase, which involves pursuing legal fees, triple damages, and punitive reparations against Baldoni, Sarowitz, Nathan, and the other Wayfarer Parties responsible for this oppressive litigation.”
Lively Addresses Situation Publicly
Shortly after Baldoni’s counter-claim was thrown out, Lively marked the decision with an emotional statement on Instagram.
“Last week, I proudly stood with 19 organizations that are committed to protecting women’s right to advocate for their security,” she communicated to her Instagram audience on June 9, 2025. “Similar to countless others, I have experienced the distress of a vindictive lawsuit, including the contrived humiliation designed to demoralize us.”
Lively observed: “Although the legal action targeting me was unsuccessful, numerous individuals lack the means to resist. I am more determined than ever to keep advocating for every woman’s entitlement to express themselves in safeguarding their well-being, including their security, their honesty, their self-respect, and their narrative.”
Baldoni’s Counsel Reacts to Legal Action Termination
On June 10, 2025, Freedman informed Us in a statement that Team Lively’s “foreseeable proclamation of success” was “untrue.”
“While the Court dismissed the claims related to defamation, it has extended an invitation for us to revise four of the seven allegations against Ms. Lively, which will present further proof and refined accusations,” Freedman specified. “This lawsuit concerns fabricated charges of sexual harassment and reprisal, and a non-existent campaign to discredit, which Ms. Lively’s own representatives conveniently label as ‘undetectable’ because they cannot substantiate events that never transpired.”
Baldoni Chooses Not to Resubmit Legal Action
On June 24, 2025, Baldoni’s legal representatives verified that they would forgo submitting a revised legal complaint against Lively and Reynolds, prioritizing instead the evidence-gathering stage for their 2026 trial.
“The Court’s ruling on the motion to dismiss has absolutely no bearing on the fact that no harassment or defamation campaign occurred, and it does not in any manner impact our zealous defense against Ms. Lively’s assertions,” Freedman informed People.
High-Profile Legal Summonses Traded
As the legal dispute now centers on the 2026 trial, Team Lively on June 13, 2024, requested Judge Liman to issue an updated “confidentiality order” to thwart Team Baldoni’s “ongoing requests” concerning her exchanges with Swift. Lively’s attorneys asserted that Baldoni had not provided “the documents they publicly stated they had obtained as part of an agreement to withdraw their subpoenas” from Swift.
Concurrently, reports indicated that Team Lively intended to serve its own subpoenas to conservative pundit Candace Owens, podcast host Andy Signore, and internet blogger Perez Hilton.
“Considering I have yet to receive any subpoena, I am grateful Blake’s team released this information to TMZ to make me aware,” Owens communicated to People in a declaration. “And, naturally, I have absolutely no understanding of the reason for my subpoena, as I was unacquainted with any of these individuals when their separate lawsuits were initiated. Nevertheless, remain informed, and I will update listeners on my podcast.”
Public Relations Executive Removed from Lively’s Legal Action
On July 16, 2025, Judge Liman formally removed public relations specialist Jed Wallace from Lively’s revised lawsuit due to insufficient jurisdiction, as Wallace and his firm, Street Relations, operate out of Texas, not New York where Lively initiated her legal action. Lively had claimed that Wallace participated in organizing a defamation campaign against her on Baldoni’s behalf — an accusation the PR executive refuted.
“Ms. Lively accepts the Court’s ruling, which bears no relevance to the substance of her claims concerning Mr. Wallace’s involvement in the defamation campaign, and pertains exclusively to the procedural query of his amenability to jurisdiction in New York or another location,” a representative for Lively informed Us. “We are presently assessing our various avenues for holding Mr. Wallace responsible for the crucial function he played in the punitive endeavor for which Justin Baldoni and the Wayfarer Parties compensated him at least tens of thousands of dollars monthly.”
Lively’s Testimony Under Oath Occurs
On July 31, 2025, Lively participated in her rescheduled sworn testimony in New York City. Baldoni, accompanied by his legal counsel, was present to observe the actress responding to inquiries regarding their on-set conflict and continuing legal battle.
Controversy Over Released Sworn Testimony
Four days subsequent to the sworn testimony, Team Lively charged Baldoni with endeavoring to make public the entire “292-page transcript” to the official court record as part of “a fabricated justification to compel the transcript into public circulation as material for the Wayfarer Defendants’ media offensive.”
“No imaginable legal rationale exists for submitting the entire transcript, especially considering it has not undergone review, correction, or finalization, and only two pages of it were referenced in their argument,” Team Lively communicated in a letter to the court.
On August 6, 2025, Baldoni’s attorney Freedman replied, refuting that his faction sought to disseminate the transcript of the sworn testimony.
“[Blake] similarly neglects to clarify why any such ‘disclosure’ could not have originated from [Lively], her spouse [Reynolds], her several legal representatives, the legal or administrative personnel from her representing law firm (whose premises she insisted host the deposition), or the catering staff hired by them who provided lunch,” Freedman retorted.
Lively Achieves Victory Regarding Sworn Testimony
On August 8, 2025, Judge Liman approved Team Lively’s petition to prevent Team Baldoni from submitting sections of her sworn testimony into the court record before the transcript’s completion. Freedman had earlier appended a segment of Lively’s transcript to a sealed court filing as corroborating proof.
Isabela Ferrer Controversy Commences
Team Baldoni petitioned Judge Liman to obligate It Ends With Us actress Isabela Ferrer — who portrayed a youthful rendition of Lively’s character Lily in the film — to surrender text communications pertinent to the legal matter.
In the August 12, 2025, judicial submission, Baldoni’s attorneys asserted their inability to serve Ferrer with a subpoena at various addresses and noted the actress’s legal counsel did not answer their demand for case-related data. Team Baldoni sought “all records pertaining to any prejudiced, abusive, punitive, improper, or unwelcome action, behavior, or utterance.”
Baldoni claimed that Lively coerced Ferrer into distancing herself from him during the filming of It Ends With Us.
Ferrer Charges Team Baldoni with ‘Intimidation’
On August 18, 2025, Ferrer’s legal representatives asserted in judicial filings that Team Baldoni was “intimidating” her through “obvious attempts to pressure Ms. Ferrer” into surrendering communications with Lively. Her attorneys implored the court to reject Baldoni’s demand for documents and to levy penalties against him.
“Baldoni has attempted to influence, menace, direct, and generally behave improperly towards Ms. Ferrer,” Ferrer’s legal team claimed.
On August 19, 2025, Team Baldoni refuted those allegations, maintaining they were merely seeking “records that [Ferrer] either failed to provide or were not initially requested” when Lively first issued a subpoena for her in February 2025.
Correspondence and Electronic Mail Made Public
On August 25, Judge Liman disclosed a collection of Baldoni’s text messages and emails that had previously been censored from a selection of Lively’s judicial filings.
A particular message contained a conversation between Baldoni and his public relations representative concerning an “instance of someone harassing Blake” from his Instagram profile, which might not have been “an authentic account.” The publicist maintained that the message was possibly authored by a “genuine provocateur” and was “absolutely” not from anyone associated with Baldoni’s group.
A separate text message from Baldoni’s business associate Jamey Heath mentioned engaging a “crisis intervention team” at a cost of “$9 million.”
“It’s simply a matter of handling every potential danger to prevent its activation,” Heath’s text message stated. “And the complexities involved are extensive.”
Lively Demands Substantial Sum from Baldoni
Following the dismissal of Baldoni’s counter-claim in June 2025, Lively pursued a multi-million dollar compensation from the director in September 2025, citing alleged misuse of the legal framework. Us acquired judicial records where Team Lively asserted she was entitled to “appropriate legal fees and expenditures for successfully protecting [herself] in the litigation.” Lively intended to claim reparations for financial, emotional, and psychological injuries, in addition to the previously mentioned charges.
Lively referenced California’s Act for Protecting Survivors from Exploitative Defamation Lawsuits, which “guarantees that individuals subjected to sexual harassment or reprisal can recount their experiences to courts, authorities, the media, and other entities without apprehension of facing legal action for doing so.”
Baldoni’s legal counsel has maintained that the aforementioned statute is inapplicable to Lively’s lawsuit.
Taylor Swift’s Sworn Testimony Controversy
In a surprising turn of events, Us exclusively disclosed on September 11 that Baldoni’s legal representatives submitted court documents claiming Swift “consented to appear” for a sworn testimony in October.
Nevertheless, Swift’s own legal team released a rejoinder to dispute any implication that the vocalist willingly offered to provide testimony under oath.
“As the legal representatives for all parties are aware, from the commencement of this issue, we have consistently asserted that my client holds no significant part in these proceedings,” Swift’s legal team communicated to Judge Liman on September 12. “Furthermore, my client did not consent to a deposition, but should she be compelled to provide one, we indicated (having only learned of the deposition three days prior) that her calendar could accommodate the necessary duration during the week of October 20, provided the parties could resolve their disagreements. We play no part in those disputes.”
Team Lively sharply criticized Freedman’s portrayal of Swift’s sworn testimony as voluntary, noting that a suggested late October date would fall beyond the deadline for the evidence-gathering phase.
“In this regard, [Baldoni and his team’s] absence of diligence, and disregard for [Swift’s] personal space and agenda, is astonishing,” Lively’s attorney contended on September 12, 2025. ”Evidence collection has been in progress for over half a year, and [Swift] is an individual whose schedule should be assumed to be fully booked with professional commitments for months ahead. At any moment over the preceding six months, [Baldoni’s team] could have scheduled a deposition, issued a subpoena, and arranged a mutually acceptable time and location for this testimony. Yet, they failed to do so.”
On September 13, 2025, Judge Liman decided that no postponement would be granted for Swift’s deposition, as Team Baldoni had delayed too long in beginning the procedure.
“The sole rationale they have offered for the delay is their claim that Swift’s prior professional engagements now preclude her from attending a deposition before October 20, 2025,” he penned.
The judge further stated, “Evidence-gathering in this matter has been continuous for roughly half a year. They have offered no proof that they have served a fresh subpoena on Swift… Given their failure to show proper earnestness, the requested postponement is refused.”
Baldoni Engages Diddy’s Legal Representative
On September 15, 2025, Team Baldoni strengthened its legal team by retaining Alexandra Shapiro, who had previously acted on behalf of disreputable entrepreneur Sean “Diddy” Combs and FTX creator Sam Bankman-Fried.
‘The New York Times’ Initiates Legal Action Against Baldoni
On October 1, 2025, The New York Times Company officially filed a lawsuit against Baldoni’s production firm, Wayfarer Studios LLC, concerning the actor’s dismissed defamation claim.
Subsequent to Judge Liman’s ruling to discard Baldoni’s lawsuit in June 2025, the Times aimed to recover a minimum of $150,000 in “reparatory and exemplary damages” linked to Baldoni’s legal proceedings. The journalistic entity charged Baldoni with breaching New York’s anti-SLAPP legislation, which guards against lawsuits intended to “restrict freedom of expression and harass publishers by compelling them to allocate efforts and funds to unfounded legal disputes.”
“It is now clearly understood that journalistic reporting on subjects of public concern is covered by the law,” the New York Times legal complaint maintained.
Freedman reacted to the Times’ legal action by informing People that Baldoni would persist in pursuing fairness “regardless of the outcome.”
“We decline to yield to influential figures, even when confronted with seemingly insurmountable challenges,” the attorney declared. “We uphold our stance for a singular purpose: the quest for truth, against formidable adversaries.”
‘It Ends With Us’ Cast Members Provide Sworn Testimony
Reports on October 17, 2025, indicated that It Ends With Us actors Slate and Ferrer, along with book writer Colleen Hoover, all underwent depositions as part of the evidence-gathering phase.
Slate and Ferrer reportedly gave sworn statements during the summer months, while Hoover recently provided testimony regarding her understanding of the conflict between Lively and Baldoni.
‘Concealed Communications’ Controversy
Us acquired judicial filings from Team Lively on October 23, 2025, where they charged Team Baldoni with “obfuscating information at every stage of the evidence-gathering process, either by not providing documents or by inappropriately shielding them under attorney-client confidentiality.”
“Now that the situation has stabilized, and factual investigation and sworn testimonies have concluded, two points are evident,” Lively’s team maintained. “Significant proof exists that the punitive operation was, in actuality, carried out as intended.”
Lively’s legal representatives petitioned the court to penalize Baldoni, alleging his legal team “eliminated and/or neglected to retain or provide further substantial and highly pertinent evidence, the absence of which they aim to unfairly leverage to their advantage.”
Team Baldoni refrained from immediate comment regarding the filing.
Lively Asserts ‘It Ends With Us’ Producer Withheld Footage of Wife’s Childbirth
A letter acquired by People on November 3, 2025, indicates that Lively’s attorneys requested Judge Lewis J. Liman to “penalize” producer Jamey Heath, following his alleged failure to surrender “specific items” he was instructed to provide by September 2, 2025, notably “the video Mr. Heath displayed to Ms. Lively on the movie set, depicting his entirely nude wife during the at-home birth of their child.” Lively contends that Heath presented the purported video to her “without prior notice or permission.”
Lively additionally asserted that she has “consistently challenged” that the three-minute video Heath supplied is distinct from the clip she viewed on the It Ends With Us set. Despite Heath’s earlier declarations of possessing no other videos, Lively claimed Heath has been “deliberately and intentionally concealing” pertinent details, thereby denying her the opportunity to discuss it during his sworn testimony.
According to the publication, Lively implored Judge Liman to “mandate” Heath to deliver all video material connected to the birth footage within a three-day period. She also requested that Heath be barred from presenting any evidence, whether verbal or written testimony, concerning his display of the birth video.
Us Weekly contacted Baldoni for a statement.
Baldoni Deliberately Fails to Meet Submission Deadline
Following Us’ exclusive report in November 2025, which stated Baldoni did not overlook a deadline to appeal after a judge rejected the lawsuit against Lively, but instead that his legal representatives never planned to file an appeal, the director’s attorney commented on the trial for the first time.
“The factual details concerning this matter are persistently and entirely misconstrued in the press. Even a straightforward procedural update has led to complete misrepresentation. At this juncture, we must clarify the facts: no deadlines were overlooked. Our clients opted against modifying their complaint to safeguard their rights to appeal,” Freedman informed The Daily Mail in a November 2025 declaration.
“Concurrently, our attention is on Ms. Lively’s allegations,” Freedman added. “We are entirely dedicated to seeking justice through all accessible legal and factual channels and anticipate our forthcoming court appearance.”
Us sought a statement from Lively’s legal counsel at that moment.
Judge Rejects Allegations Against Jed Wallace
On November 5, 2025, a federal judge rejected Lively’s accusations against Wallace — a social media advisor operating from Texas.
The court determined that Lively did not demonstrate Wallace possessed adequate ties to New York to be legally pursued in that jurisdiction.
“Today’s judicial ruling pertained solely to the appropriate venue for legal action against Jed Wallace. The court concluded that Ms. Lively’s allegations against him ought to be brought before an alternative court,” Lively’s representative communicated to Us in a declaration. “Ms. Lively is assessing her numerous courses of action for this. This does not affect her lawsuit against Baldoni, Heath, Sarowitz, Nathan, Abel, Wayfarer, and The Agency Group, whom she expects to confront in court in New York during the March trial.”
Baldoni’s legal representative, conversely, had a distinct response to the judge’s decision.
“We appreciate the court’s directive today, which affirmed that the claims against Mr. Wallace were never suitable for this jurisdiction,” Freedman stated to Us in a declaration. “Accusations of his involvement in any defamation campaign lack substantiation, and all allegations against him have been discarded by this court. The remaining defendants anticipate their opportunity in court to demonstrate the baselessness of Ms. Lively’s charges against them.”
Lively Pursues Reparations and Identifies Possible Testifiers
Us acquired fresh judicial filings from Team Lively, submitted in July 2025 and unveiled that November. Within these revelation forms, Lively asserted she incurred no less than $161 million in losses due to Baldoni’s alleged sexual harassment and “defamation campaign.” (Baldoni has consistently refuted all accusations of misconduct during the production of It Ends With Us and maintained his non-involvement in any smear campaign.)
Lively’s team detailed her financial setbacks, totaling $56.2 million from past and projected income from her acting roles, public appearances, and brand endorsements, in addition to $49 million in anticipated losses from her beauty line, Blake Brown, and $22 million from her drink label, Betty Buzz/Betty Booze. The filings delineated various other related expenses Lively is requesting from Baldoni, including $34 million for harm to her public image.
Team Lively’s most recent submission alluded to several prominent figures who might be summoned to give evidence at the March 2026 trial. Her attorneys indicated that Reynolds, Swift, Emily Blunt, Scooter Braun, Hugh Jackman, and Gigi Hadid, among numerous others, are “expected to possess pertinent information” regarding the It Ends With Us set controversy.
