Blake Lively's Lawsuit Against Justin Baldoni Engulfs Hollywood in Scandal

The purported conflict involving Blake Lively, the director and her fellow actor Justin Baldoni during the filming 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 submitting a grievance to the California Civil Rights Department, then proceeded to file a lawsuit against Baldoni for claims of sexual harassment.

In response, Bryan Freedman, Baldoni’s attorney, countered Lively’s claims as “utterly untrue, scandalous, and deliberately provocative,” subsequently launching a $400 million counterclaim against the actress on behalf of the director in January 2025.

Lively's legal team proclaimed “absolute triumph and full exoneration” over Baldoni when his retaliatory lawsuit was thrown out in June 2025, yet their judicial struggle continues. A hearing regarding Lively’s initial complaint 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 becoming involved in the proceedings.

The presiding judge was 'unfamiliar' with both Justin Baldoni and Blake Lively prior to their legal dispute.

Continue reading for an exhaustive chronology of the legal conflict.

Lively Submits Grievance Against Baldoni

On December 21, 2024, The New York Times disclosed that Lively had lodged a formal complaint with the California Civil Rights Department targeting Baldoni. This preliminary filing contained a series of allegations concerning Baldoni’s purported behavior during the production of It Ends With Us and an alleged campaign to defame Lively.

Lively asserted that a gathering took place to discuss “a detrimental workplace atmosphere” on the set of It Ends With Us, attended by her husband, Reynolds. Lively detailed her requests at this meeting for “an end to showing nude videos or pictures of women to Blake, no more references to Baldoni’s supposed past ‘pornography dependency,’ a cessation of conversations about sexual exploits in front of Blake and others, no additional remarks regarding cast and crew’s private parts, no further questions about Blake’s physical size, and no more discussions concerning Blake’s deceased father.”

Lively reportedly also demanded “no further inclusion of intimate scenes, oral sex, or on-screen climaxes by BL [Blake Lively] beyond the script BL had consented to upon joining the production” to be incorporated into It Ends With Us by Baldoni or other creative personnel.

Furthermore, Lively accused Baldoni of orchestrating a “social engineering” campaign aimed at damaging her public image, which reportedly involved sharing a text message supposedly sent by his publicist to a studio public relations contact, indicating Baldoni’s alleged desire “to feel that [Lively] could be completely discredited.”

A Subsequent Grievance

Lively’s legal documentation cited a grievance from an anonymous actress involved in It Ends With Us concerning Baldoni’s behavior on set. Her legal representatives stated in official court papers that Lively’s choice to voice apprehensions about Baldoni “was not solely for her benefit, but also for other women among the cast and crew, some of whom had similarly raised issues.”

“Due to Mr. Baldoni’s actions, on May 29, 2023, a different cast member formally complained about Mr. Baldoni’s ‘offensive’ and ‘unsolicited remark[s]’ directed at her and others,” the accusation detailed.

Lively affirmed that Baldoni “explicitly recognized her worries in writing” and committed to “make necessary changes,” yet she recounted a further troubling discussion with an actress subsequent to that understanding.

“On June 8, 2023, the aforementioned actress told Ms. Lively that ‘apart from anything required in a scene, I genuinely cannot communicate with Justin whatsoever,” her legal counsel asserted. “Mr. Baldoni subsequently voiced suspicions about Ms. Lively’s camaraderie with this actress, implying they were conspiring against him.”

Lively claimed that Baldoni uttered disparaging and gender-biased remarks about her and fellow colleagues throughout the filming of It Ends With Us, and also purportedly shared accounts of past sexual encounters lacking consent. (Baldoni disavowed any improper conduct.)

Baldoni’s Counsel Reacts

Immediately thereafter, Freedman, Baldoni’s attorney, rejected the substance of the complaint in comments made to Us Weekly. The lawyer implied that the grievance was Lively’s effort to “mend her tarnished image” and “resurface an account” suggesting the making of It Ends With Us faced difficulties.

Freedman charged Lively with issuing “numerous demands and menaces” throughout the filming of the major production, among them “threatening to be absent from the set, threatening to withhold promotion for the movie, potentially resulting in its failure upon release, should her conditions remain unfulfilled.”

Initial Reference to Taylor Swift’s Participation

The earliest indication of Lively’s confidante Swift’s connection to the disagreement appeared to be in an appendix appended to the lawsuit by the legal representatives of the It Ends With Us actress. A crisis management specialist employed by Baldoni reportedly stated in an August 2024 email that “we’ve observed minor problems escalate significantly via social media or colossal crises have no social impact at all. It's simply unpredictable at this point. However, BL [Blake Lively] commands a portion of the same TS [Taylor Swift] following, so we will treat this with utmost gravity.”

An additional “contingency planning” document originating from Baldoni’s camp suggested their “group could also investigate circulating stories about the instrumentalization of feminism and how figures such as Taylor Swift have been accused of employing such strategies to ‘coerce’ [adversaries] into achieving their objectives.”

Lively Issues First Public Comment

Issuing her inaugural public declaration since initiating her sexual harassment grievance, Lively characterized her judicial move as a crucial stride towards eradicating toxic workplaces within the Hollywood industry.

“My hope is that my legal recourse will aid in exposing these malicious retaliatory strategies designed to harm individuals who report wrongdoing, and offer protection to others who might become targets,” she conveyed on December 21, 2025.

Baldoni’s Representation Terminated by Talent Agency

Senior leadership at the prominent Hollywood talent firm WME opted on December 21, 2024, to cease representing Baldoni, following the sexual harassment accusations outlined in Lively’s complaint. Lively, in contrast, maintained her representation with WME.

Baldoni’s Honor Withdrawn

A representative for the Vital Voices Solidarity Awards declared the revocation of an honor bestowed upon Baldoni for his advocacy in support of women’s rights.

“The Voices of Solidarity Award acknowledges distinguished men who have demonstrated bravery and empathy in championing women and girls,” an Instagram statement published on December 23, 2025, conveyed. “On December 9, 2024, we honored Justin Baldoni with this accolade. By Saturday, December 21, news reports brought to our attention a lawsuit filed by Blake Lively against Mr. Baldoni, his public relations team, and others, which is unsettling and claims egregious behavior. The exchanges between Mr. Baldoni and his publicists, as detailed in the lawsuit — and the public relations strategy they imply — are, in isolation, at odds with the principles of Vital Voices and the essence of the Award.”

Fresh Baldoni Declaration

Baldoni’s lawyer, Freedman, issued an updated statement on December 23, 2024, refuting that the director’s collaboration with the crisis management company The Agency Group PR constituted “social engineering.”

“TAG PR functioned as any typical crisis management entity would when engaged by a client facing intimidation from two exceptionally influential individuals with boundless means,” Freedman stated. “The routine contingency plans formulated by TAG PR ultimately proved redundant, as the public perceived Lively’s conduct, interviews, and promotional activities during the press tour as off-putting, reacting spontaneously to what the media itself highlighted.”

Freedman alleged that Lively’s legal representatives selectively chose text messages between Baldoni and TAG PR to bolster their arguments in a New York Times report concerning the controversy.

“It is paradoxical that The New York Times, in its endeavor to ‘expose’ a nefarious public relations operation, inadvertently furthered Lively’s questionable PR strategies by releasing private text message conversations devoid of crucial context — the very methods she is attributing to the firm,” the attorney commented.

Sony Backs Lively

Sony Pictures — the company responsible for distributing It Ends With Us — openly expressed its support for Lively concerning her contributions to the successful film, without explicitly naming Baldoni.

“Our prior statements affirmed our support for Blake regarding her involvement with and dedication to the movie. We unequivocally and steadfastly reaffirm that endorsement today,” a Sony spokesperson informed Variety in a December 23, 2024, announcement. “Moreover, we vehemently denounce any assaults on her character. Such attacks are unacceptable within our industry or in a respectful society.”

SAG-AFTRA Commends Lively

The actors’ guild issued its own declaration on December 23, 2024, to “commend” Lively’s “bravery in addressing matters of retaliation and harassment, and for her demand for an intimacy coordinator in all sequences involving nudity or sexually explicit material.”

“This represents a significant advancement that contributes to securing a safe filming environment,” a SAG-AFTRA representative further stated. “Workers possess the full prerogative to voice worries or to submit grievances. Retaliation for reporting misbehavior or improper conduct is against the law and immoral. Everyone deserves to be treated with honor and consideration at work and to operate in a setting devoid of harassment, bias, and vindictiveness.”

Jenny Slate Addresses Judicial Dispute

Jenny Slate, Lively’s fellow actor in It Ends With Us, voiced her support in a resolute statement provided to NBC’s Today.

“As a colleague and friend of Blake Lively, I express my solidarity as she pursues legal action against individuals allegedly involved in orchestrating and executing a campaign to damage her public image,” Slate commented on December 24, 2024. “Blake embodies leadership, steadfast friendship, and serves as a reliable confidante for me and countless others who are acquainted with and cherish her.”

Justin Baldoni Shares Personal News During Blake Lively Controversy: 'Thankful'

She added, “The disclosures regarding the assault on Blake are profoundly unsettling, alarming, and completely menacing. I applaud my friend, I respect her courage, and I pledge my unwavering support.”

Baldoni’s Attorney Pledges Counterclaim

Freedman affirmed to Deadline on December 28, 2024, that he was preparing a counter-litigation against Lively on behalf of Baldoni.

“I will not elaborate on the timing or quantity of lawsuits we intend to file, but upon the initiation of our first legal action, it will astound all those who have been swayed into accepting a patently untrue account,” the attorney declared. “This will be substantiated by verifiable evidence and present the authentic narrative.”

Freedman subsequently cautioned, “Across more than three decades of legal practice, I have never witnessed such a degree of morally reprehensible conduct deliberately perpetuated through media manipulation.”

Baldoni Initiates Legal Action Against ‘The New York Times’

The director initiated a $250 million lawsuit against The New York Times concerning its reporting on Lively’s grievance, acting on behalf of himself, his production company Wayfarer, public relations experts Melissa Nathan and Jennifer Abel, It Ends With Us producers Jamey Heath and Steve Sarowitz, and five additional individuals. The litigation alleged that Times personnel engaged in defamation and privacy invasion by presenting a distorted image through “selectively extracting” communications and text messages between Baldoni and a crisis public relations firm for their piece “We Can Bury Anyone: Inside a Hollywood Smear Machine” penned by journalists Megan Twohey, Mike McIntire, and Julie Tate.

Baldoni’s legal representatives charged the Times with contributing to Team Lively’s “calculated and deceptive” campaign to discredit the director, which allegedly involved leveling “sexual harassment accusations to seize absolute authority over all facets of the filming” of It Ends With Us.

“The Times article was founded almost exclusively on Lively’s unsubstantiated and self-interested account, adopting it almost word-for-word while overlooking ample evidence that gainsaid her assertions and revealed her actual intentions,” Baldoni’s legal counsel claimed in official court papers.

‘The New York Times’ Reacts to Legal Action

The New York Times upheld its journalistic integrity following Baldoni’s $250 million legal challenge.

“The function of an autonomous news entity is to pursue information wherever it may lead,” a statement from the Times declared on December 31, 2024. “Our report was thoroughly and conscientiously compiled. It stemmed from an examination of thousands of original records, including the text messages and emails that we precisely and extensively cite in the piece. These communications also formed the core of a discrimination claim lodged in California by Blake Lively against Justin Baldoni and those affiliated with him.”

A primary point of contention between the two parties centered on Baldoni’s accusation that The New York Times released its story ahead of its initial commitment.

“In an effort to rectify certain misrepresentations within the lawsuit, while soliciting feedback from Mr. Baldoni and other individuals slated for inclusion in the article, The Times disseminated the content we intended to print, encompassing mentions of particular text messages and documents, requested them to pinpoint any inaccuracies, supply further background, and converse with our staff. Mr. Baldoni, Wayfarer, and the other subjects opted not to engage in any dialogue with The Times or address any of the specific text messages or documents, instead submitting a collective email response, which was fully published. (Moreover, they transmitted their reply to the Times at 11:16 p.m. ET on Dec 20th, contrary to the complaint’s assertion of 2:16 a.m. ET on Dec 21st.)”

A representative for the publication pledged to “strenuously defend” itself against the legal claim.

Lively Reacts to Baldoni’s ‘New York Times’ Litigation

Lively’s representative informed Us that any suggestion of her conspiring with The New York Times to slander 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, which were submitted earlier today,” Lively’s declaration on December 31, 2024, stated. “This lawsuit relies on the clearly erroneous assertion that Ms. Lively’s administrative grievance against Wayfarer and others was a pretense founded on a decision ‘not to pursue legal action against Baldoni, Wayfarer,’ and that ‘a court battle was never her primary objective.’ As indicated by the federal complaint lodged by Ms. Lively earlier today, that contextual framework for the Wayfarer lawsuit is incorrect. While we shall not debate this issue in public, we urge individuals to review Ms. Lively’s complete complaint. We anticipate confronting each and every one of Wayfarer’s accusations in a judicial setting.”

Lively Initiates Legal Action Against Baldoni

Concurrently with Baldoni’s legal move against The New York Times, Lively filed a lawsuit against him in the Southern District of New York, citing sexual harassment, reprisal, contractual breach, intentional infliction of emotional suffering, privacy violation, and foregone income. Baldoni’s production company, Wayfarer, as well as public relations professionals Nathan and Abel, were also implicated in Lively’s legal filing.

“Prior today, Ms. Lively submitted a federal grievance targeting Wayfarer Studios and other parties in the Southern District of New York,” Lively’s legal representatives informed Us on December 31, 2024. “Ms. Lively had earlier submitted her California Civil Rights Department Complaint as a reaction to the retaliatory measures Wayfarer initiated against her for disclosing sexual harassment and safety issues in the workplace. Regrettably, Ms. Lively’s choice to vocalize her concerns has led to additional punitive actions and aggressions.”

Their declaration continued, “As asserted in Ms. Lively’s federal Complaint, Wayfarer and its affiliated entities have contravened federal and California state statutes by retaliating against her for reporting instances of sexual harassment and concerns regarding workplace safety. The accused parties will now be held accountable for their behavior in federal court. Ms. Lively has initiated this legal process in New York, where a substantial portion of the pertinent events outlined in the Complaint transpired, yet we maintain the prerogative to pursue additional legal measures in other appropriate forums and jurisdictions as permissible by law.”

Baldoni Verifies Counter-Litigation Intentions

Freedman informed NBC News on January 2, 2025, that his firm was “definitely” preparing a retaliatory lawsuit against Lively.

“Our intention is to publish every single text message exchanged between the two individuals,” Freedman disclosed to the news source. “We desire for the truth to be public. We want the official records to be accessible. We wish for people to form their conclusions based on factual evidence.”

During the same interview, Freedman refuted Lively’s claim that Baldoni orchestrated a campaign to defame her, in collaboration with a crisis management company.

“Absolutely not,” he stated. “Justin Baldoni, from the very beginning, expressed, ‘I do not wish to undertake any adverse actions against her. I do not want to cause her harm.’”

Lively Condemns Baldoni ‘Aggressions’

Lively’s legal representatives denounced Freedman’s recent public remarks in a statement to Us and maintained that her lawsuit was predicated on “grave allegations of sexual harassment and punitive action.”

“This does not constitute a ‘dispute’ stemming from ‘artistic disagreements’ or a ‘conflicting accounts’ scenario,” the attorneys’ statement on January 7, 2025, declared. “As asserted in Ms. Lively’s complaint, and as we intend to demonstrate in court, Wayfarer [Studios] and its affiliates participated in illicit, punitive astroturfing against Ms. Lively merely for attempting to safeguard herself and others on a movie set. Furthermore, their reaction to the lawsuit has involved initiating additional aggressions against Ms. Lively since her initial filing.”

Lively’s legal advisors elaborated, “Sexual harassment and reprisal are prohibited in all professional environments and sectors. A common strategy to divert attention from claims of such inappropriate behavior is to ‘fault the complainant’ by implying they provoked the actions, were responsible for the situation, misinterpreted the motives, or fabricated the account. Another frequent method involves inverting the roles of victim and perpetrator, proposing that the alleged wrongdoer is in fact the one victimized. These ideas normalize and diminish grave accusations of misconduct.”

Justin Baldoni Recounts ‘Challenging Year’ in 2024 Podcast Excerpt

Their declaration concluded, “Crucially, public comments are not a valid defense against Ms. Lively’s legal assertions. We will persist in pursuing her claims in federal court, where the principles of justice, rather than exaggeration and intimidation, will dictate the outcome.”

Freedman stated to Us on January 7, 2025, that the recent remarks from Lively’s legal counsel distorted the actual circumstances.

“It is profoundly paradoxical that Blake Lively is alleging Justin Baldoni is using the media as a weapon, considering her own team masterminded this aggressive assault by supplying the New York Times with severely altered documents even before the complaint was lodged,” he commented. “We are making public all substantiating evidence that will reveal a consistent pattern of intimidation and coercion aimed at seizing control of the film. This will not be unexpected, as in keeping with her previous conduct, Blake Lively employed proxies to convey those intimidations and force her will to achieve her desires. We possess all the documentary proof!”

The ‘Nicepool’ Dispute

On January 14, 2025, Us disclosed that Freedman had dispatched a litigation hold notice 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 prospective lawsuit. Freedman specifically requested that Disney and Marvel Studios safeguard records concerning whether the character “Nicepool” in Reynolds’ 2024 film Deadpool & Wolverine was conceived to ridicule Baldoni.

“[The request concerns] or indicates a premeditated effort to deride, pester, make fun of, intimidate, or badger Baldoni by means of the character ‘Nicepool,’” Freedman penned. “It is imperative that Marvel undertakes all practicable measures to safeguard this material until explicitly instructed otherwise.”

Baldoni’s Company Files Lawsuit Against Lively

Wayfarer Studios, Baldoni’s enterprise, initiated a $400 million legal action against Lively, her spouse, Reynolds, and her public relations agent, Leslie Sloane, on January 16, 2025. They alleged Lively attempted to “cast Baldoni as the actual antagonist in her narrative” to compensate for “insensitive” marketing of her hair care and beverage products concurrently with the debut of a movie centered on domestic abuse.

The complaint charged Lively with enacting a “hostile takeover tactic” on It Ends With Us, driven by artistic disagreements with Baldoni, alongside a multitude of allegations regarding her professional readiness and purported disparaging remarks made on set. He asserted Lively coerced other It Ends With Us cast members to “avoid” him once creative conflicts began to emerge.

“This lawsuit is a legal action founded on a substantial body of unaltered proof detailing Blake Lively and her team’s deceptive endeavor to undermine Justin Baldoni, his associates, and their respective organizations by circulating extensively modified, unverified, novel, and fabricated intelligence to the press,” Freedman informed Us. “It is evident, given our complete readiness to furnish all comprehensive text messages, emails, video recordings, and other evidentiary materials exchanged between the parties in real-time, that this is a confrontation she cannot triumph in and will undoubtedly lament. Blake Lively was either gravely misinformed by her representatives or deliberately and consciously misrepresented the facts.”

Freedman communicated to Us that the lawsuit’s objective was to ensure Lively could “never again be permitted to persist in exploiting genuine victims of actual harassment merely for her own reputational benefit, at the cost of those lacking influence.”

Taylor Swift’s Text Correspondence

Within his legal action, Baldoni’s attorneys made public a text message from the director to Lively which apparently alluded to her friend Swift and Reynolds offering their opinions on the rooftop sequence in It Ends With Us.

“Today I was engaged with the rooftop scene, and I truly appreciate your contributions. It genuinely assists [sic] immensely,” he supposedly messaged. “It renders it considerably more enjoyable and engaging. (And I would have perceived it thus even without Ryan and Taylor). You possess exceptional talent across all domains. I am truly enthusiastic and appreciative to collaborate on this endeavor.”

Lively Addresses Baldoni’s Legal Action

Lively denounced Wayfarer’s legal challenge as a “last-ditch” approach and labeled the court action as “yet another instance from the perpetrator’s manual.”

“This represents a timeless narrative: A woman voices concerns with tangible proof of sexual harassment and punitive measures, and the aggressor endeavors to manipulate the situation against the victim. This phenomenon is termed DARVO by specialists: Deny. Attack. Reverse Victim Offender,” Lively’s representatives informed Us on January 16, 2025. “Wayfarer has chosen to deploy the considerable assets of its billionaire co-founder to disseminate public statements, initiate baseless legal proceedings, and menace with litigation, aiming to overwhelm the public’s comprehension that their actions constitute retribution against sexual harassment accusations.”

Her legal team charged Baldoni with “attempting to redirect the narrative towards Ms. Lively by erroneously asserting that she assumed creative authority and isolated the cast from Mr. Baldoni.”

“The proof will demonstrate that the cast and other individuals had their own unfavorable encounters with Mr. Baldoni and Wayfarer. The evidence will further indicate that Sony requested Ms. Lively to supervise Sony’s version of the movie, which they subsequently chose for release and achieved substantial acclaim,” they stated. “Their reaction to claims of sexual harassment: she desired it, it is her responsibility. Their rationale for why this occurred to her: consider her attire. In essence, while the person harmed concentrates on the mistreatment, the perpetrator directs attention to the person harmed. The tactic of assailing the woman is a desperate one; it does not challenge the corroboration in Ms. Lively’s complaint, and it will prove ineffective.”

Baldoni’s Attorney Upholds Legal Action

Freedman issued a declaration to Deadline on January 18, 2025, to dispute Lively’s portrayal of Baldoni’s legal challenge. The lawyer asserted his lawsuit contained “nearly 200 pages of irrefutable evidence” that “dismantled” Lively’s “defamation effort” involving The New York Times.

“Blake and her legal counsel have only one egregious shift remaining, which is to intensify the outrageously false sexual accusations leveled against Mr. Baldoni,” Freedman remarked.

Baldoni’s Infrequent Remark

The filmmaker behind It Ends With Us was captured on camera outside Los Angeles International Airport on January 17, 2025, accompanied by his daughter Maiya and son Maxwell, along with his wife, Emily.

Inquired about his well-being, Baldoni responded: “We are thankful for our time with family, truly. We are blessed with wonderful friends, family, and belief.”

‘It Ends With Us’ Behind-the-Scenes Video Disclosed

Freedman made public a 10-minute compilation of on-set video from It Ends With Us, which allegedly depicted Baldoni and Lively engaging in amicable conversation while pausing a romantic sequence. In the video, Baldoni commends Lively regarding her union with Reynolds, and she playfully remarks about transferring her “body makeup” onto her fellow actor as they embraced for a scene.

“Ms. Lively’s grievance asserts that during a sequence Mr. Baldoni and Ms. Lively were shooting for a slow dance compilation, Mr. Baldoni acted improperly. The subsequent videos recorded on May 23, 2023, unequivocally contradict Ms. Lively’s depiction of his conduct,” Freedman informed Us in a declaration on January 21, 2025. “The particular scene was intended to illustrate the two personalities falling in love and desiring intimacy. Both performers are demonstrably conducting themselves entirely within the confines of the scene, exhibiting mutual deference and expertise. These constitute all three renditions of the filmed segment.”

Lively’s Legal Counsel Denounces Release of ‘It Ends With Us’ Footage

Lively’s legal representatives dismissed Baldoni’s unveiling of candid footage from the set of It Ends With Us as a “publicity maneuver” that failed to invalidate their client’s claims.

“The recording illustrates Mr. Baldoni consistently moving closer to Ms. Lively, attempting to kiss her, placing a kiss on her forehead, brushing his face and mouth against her throat, gently flicking her lip with his thumb, tenderly touching her, remarking on her fragrance, and conversing with her outside of their character roles,” her legal counsel stated. “Each of these instances was spontaneously performed by Mr. Baldoni without any prior discussion or agreement, and without the presence of an intimacy coordinator. Mr. Baldoni served not only as Ms. Lively’s fellow actor but also as the director, the head of the studio, and Ms. Lively’s superior.”

Lively’s legal team posited that anyone who had experienced “unwanted physical contact in a professional setting” would discern the actress’s demeanor in the video.

“They will perceive her efforts at humor intended to ward off the unsolicited contact,” her attorneys contended. “No female should be compelled to employ defensive tactics to evade being touched by their superior without her agreement.”

Their declaration concluded, “The issue is currently subject to ongoing legal proceedings in federal court. Disseminating this video to news outlets, instead of submitting it as evidence in a judicial setting, represents another instance of an unscrupulous endeavor to influence public opinion. It also perpetuates their campaign of harassment and vengeance. While their attention is on fabricating media portrayals, our focus remains on the judicial procedure. We are pressing forward with our initiatives to compel Mr. Baldoni and his collaborators to respond in court, under oath, rather than through contrived media spectacles.”

Commencement Date for Trial Established

On January 27, 2025, Judge Lewis J. Liman, serving 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, assuming no prior resolution to their conflict was reached.

Lively and Reynolds Endeavor to Get Baldoni Counterclaim Dismissed

On January 30, 2025, the pair petitioned a federal judge to set aside Baldoni’s retaliatory lawsuit. Lively furthermore sought to prevent Freedman from deposing her during their ongoing legal contention.

Absence of Conciliation

In an unusual instance of consensus, Baldoni’s and Lively’s legal representatives submitted a joint communication to Judge Liman on January 30, 2025, indicating their mutual “agreement that negotiations for a settlement would be premature” at that juncture. Judge Liman ultimately approved their petition to bypass standard mediation procedures, given Lively’s impending submission of an “updated grievance.”

Baldoni Unveils Online Platform Regarding Litigation

Despite widespread public grievances from Lively and her legal team, Freedman proceeded with initiating a website dedicated to the case on February 1, 2025. The online portal — accessible at “thelawsuitinfo.com” — debuted featuring an extensive 224-page “Revised Complaint” outlining Baldoni’s allegations against Lively, in addition to a 168-page PDF providing a chronological breakdown of their contention.

Among the proof showcased on the website was a text message in which Reynolds purportedly referred to Baldoni as a “person of integrity,” along with further exchanges between the director and Lively concerning the memorable rooftop sequence in It Ends With Us. The platform even presented an alleged message composed by Reynolds and Lively, wherein they accepted responsibility for the widely criticized marketing of It Ends With Us.

“Justin and his group possess the prerogative to vindicate themselves with factual information,” Baldoni’s attorney Freedman informed Us regarding the website. “And this is what we shall continue to demonstrate with the forthcoming online platform, which will house all communications and pertinent videos that directly nullify her assertions.”

Monetary Ramification

During a preliminary hearing on February 3, 2025, Freedman disclosed that Baldoni and other individuals implicated in Lively’s lawsuit were “financially and emotionally shattered” as a consequence of the legal proceedings.

“Without resorting to childish accusations of ‘they initiated it,’ it's a reality in these sorts of situations that a declaration, once made, is accepted as fact; there exists no recourse to challenge it,” Freedman conveyed to the court.

In her separate statement, Lively’s attorney Michael Gottlieb asserted that the repercussions of Baldoni’s allegations had been “ruinous” for the actress’s personal and professional life.

Lively Faces Legal Action From Crisis Public Relations Company

Jed Wallace and his enterprise, Street Relations Inc. — a crisis public relations company mentioned in Lively’s original grievance against Baldoni but reportedly omitted from her subsequent legal action — initiated a lawsuit against the actress on February 5, 2025. Wallace claimed that the “harm was inflicted” merely by Lively associating him with the It Ends With Us conflict.

Wallace contended that Lively erroneously implicated him in assisting the crisis management company TAG PR with “their illicit vindictive online campaign.” He asserted his firm incurred millions in damages, alongside over a million dollars in anticipated financial losses for Street Relations Inc.

Lively’s legal counsel replied to Us: “A new day, a new jurisdiction, another nine-figure legal action aiming to bankrupt Ms. Lively ‘into non-existence’ for speaking against sexual harassment and retribution. This is more than a mere promotional tactic — it represents clear retaliation in reaction to the claims detailed within a sexual harassment and reprisal grievance that Ms. Lively submitted to the California Civil Rights Department. Although this lawsuit will be rejected, we are gratified that Mr. Wallace has at last come forward, and that he, too, will face accountability in federal court.”

Telephone Records Sought by Subpoena

On February 13, 2025, Us verified that Lively’s attorneys had dispatched subpoenas to AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile, requesting telephone logs for Baldoni, producer Jamey Heath, and Wayfarer Studios co-founder Steve Sarowitz, in addition to Baldoni’s public relations agents Abel and Nathan.

“Telephone data belonging to all of the named individual defendants will unveil the complete network of persons engaged in the defamation campaign targeting Ms. Lively,” a representative for Lively clarified to Us. “Such documentation will furnish crucial and undeniable proof not merely regarding who, but also concerning the timing, location, and operational specifics of their retaliatory scheme.”

Freedman replied to Us by stating that subpoenas “constitute a regular component of the legal process,” prior to condemning Team Lively’s most recent demand.

“What is remarkable is the scope of the Lively Parties’ demands. They are requesting every call, text, data record, and even live location details spanning the last 2.5 years, irrespective of the originator, recipient, or content,” he asserted. “This extensive exploratory effort indicates their frantic search for any factual foundation for their demonstrably erroneous claims. They will discover none.”

Reynolds Quips Regarding Litigation on ‘SNL’

Both Reynolds and Lively were present at the Saturday Night Live 50th-anniversary celebration in New York City on February 16, 2025, during which the Deadpool star humorously addressed the pair’s ongoing legal saga.

During a segment in which Amy Poehler and Tina Fey engaged in conversations with renowned figures within the live studio audience, the iconic SNL personalities inquired about Reynolds’ well-being.

“[I am doing] fine. Why, what information have you acquired?” Reynolds responded as the camera quickly shifted to Lively, who displayed an impassive look.

Baldoni’s Attorney Denounces ‘SNL’ Jest

Freedman did not find 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 been subjected to sexual harassment and subsequently made light of such circumstances. I cannot recall any individual having acted in that manner,” the attorney commented. “Therefore, I was taken aback.”

Fresh Charges Against Baldoni

Subsequent to the preliminary hearing on January 30, Lively submitted an updated grievance in a New York court on February 18, 2025, containing additional allegations against Baldoni. A significant disclosure within Lively’s complaint pertained to new information concerning purported workplace harassment that other female colleagues involved in It Ends With Us allegedly experienced from Baldoni. (The additional individual is not explicitly identified in Lively’s revised complaint.)

The modified judicial filings charged Wayfarer Studios with initiating a “bogus” inquiry into sexual harassment claims against Baldoni, owing to the director’s continued association with the organization.

“The revised complaint provides corroborating evidence supporting Blake’s initial worries about sexual harassment and retribution, indicating that (1) Justin Baldoni and Jamey Heath caused unease among other women on set; and (2) other women privately expressed to Blake their discomfort and reluctance to step forward, along with their apprehension regarding the prevailing public hostility,” a representative for Lively informed Us in a declaration. “The new submission also specifies that a Sony delegate discussed these issues with Baldoni, and Baldoni reacted, notably by contacting one of the other complaining women to assure her he acknowledged her concerns and vowed to implement changes.”

As per Lively, Baldoni “failed to fulfill that pledge” to alter his behavior. Lively asserts that Baldoni instead chose to “employ a crisis management group, digital influence specialists, legal professionals, and utilized these resources to devise and carry out the defamation campaign.”

“By acting thus, Blake has contended, Baldoni intended that if she or any other female made their complaints public, they would not be credited by anyone,” Lively’s representative concluded.

Baldoni Addresses Fresh Charges

On February 19, 2025, Freedman characterized Lively’s revised complaint as “unimpressive” and again criticized Reynolds for making light of the legal matter on SNL.

“Our clients have approached this matter and these concerns with utmost seriousness, despite the public jesting from the plaintiff and her husband,” he informed Us. “Her unconvincing amended complaint contains insubstantial hearsay from unidentified individuals who are evidently no longer prepared to come forward or publicly endorse her assertions. Given that records are immutable and individuals can err, the forthcoming sworn testimonies of those who initially supported Ms. Lively’s unfounded allegations and those who witnessed her own conduct will be illuminating. What is genuinely troubling here is Ms. Lively’s deficiency in tangible proof.”

Lively and Reynolds Request Enhanced Safeguards

On February 20, 2025, Lively and Reynolds formally petitioned for a more stringent protective order to be enacted in their favor. The duo contended in legal papers that “further safeguards” were necessary, given they had experienced violent intimidation as a result of their disagreement with Baldoni.

“As articulated in Ms. Lively’s Amended Complaint, Ms. Lively, her kin, other cast members, various material witnesses, and individuals who have publicly championed Ms. Lively have been recipients of aggressive, vulgar, misogynistic, and intimidating messages,” their legal representatives asserted.

Team Baldoni communicated to Us that they did not endorse any individual transmitting menacing messages on his behalf.

“Any instance of violent communications being received from anonymous sources is detestable,” his legal counsel proclaimed. “When individuals not in the public eye were unjustly accused of misconduct by Lively and her salaried associates, they were subjected to incessant death threats and calls at their private residences, where young children live, following the disclosure of their addresses in her initial grievances. No one ought to endure such experiences, particularly private citizens lacking resources for personal protection. We do not tolerate hazardous discourse directed at anyone, regardless of the circumstances.”

Lively’s Publicist Requests Exclusion From Litigation

On February 20, 2025, Lively’s public relations agent Sloane formally petitioned a New York federal court for the exclusion of her firm, Vision PR, from Baldoni’s retaliatory lawsuit. She asserted that her company was drawn into the legal entanglement as a “diversionary tactic” to draw attention away from Lively’s sexual harassment claims against Baldoni.

Conflict Over Publicly Accessible Information

On February 25, 2025, Baldoni petitioned Judge Liman to thwart Lively’s endeavor to implement an “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” clause in the proceedings, which would prevent the disclosure of specific confidential data to the public during the discovery phase.

Baldoni’s attorney Mitchell Schuster voiced astonishment at Lively’s attempt to “preclude public access to substantive and pertinent evidence,” considering her legal representative’s earlier public comments emphasizing the significance of her sexual harassment lawsuit. He implied Lively was aiming to leverage the court filing to “restore her damaged reputation through assertive media pronouncements.”

“Ms. Lively does not possess a ‘sincere’ conviction that any information exists of such a ‘private and delicate character’ that its revelation to the parties ‘would unduly infringe upon [her] privacy entitlements,’” Schuster asserted.

Lively’s attorney Gottlieb countered Team Baldoni, accusing them of displaying “insensitivity and disregard for a woman championing fundamental workplace safeguards against sexual harassment” through their legal correspondence. He further criticized “particular internet personalities” for “echo[ing] the Wayfarer Parties’ stance” with deceptive assertions concerning Lively.

Lively Engages New Crisis Public Relations Specialist

A representative for the actress verified to Us on February 28, 2025, that she had retained public relations crisis manager Nick Shapiro to offer counsel on the legal matter. Shapiro previously held the position of the CIA’s deputy chief of staff and acted as an advisor to former director John Brennan.

“Ms. Lively’s legal group engaged Mr. Shapiro to provide guidance on the judicial communications plan for the continuing sexual harassment and retaliation litigation taking place in the Southern District of New York,” Lively’s legal team stated.

Judicial Decision on Confidentiality Order

Judge Liman partially approved Lively’s petition for supplementary safeguards on March 13, 2025. The judgment permitted specific case documents to be exchanged exclusively among legal counsel.

“Today, the Tribunal dismissed the Wayfarer Parties’ remonstrances and enacted the necessary protections to guarantee the unimpeded exchange of discovery material, free from any peril of witness coercion or detriment to any person’s safety,” a representative for Lively informed Us in a declaration. “With this directive now in effect, Ms. Lively will advance through the discovery phase to procure further evidence that will substantiate her allegations in a court of law.”

Baldoni’s lawyer Freedman responded: “We completely concur with the Court’s determination to extend a limited range of safeguards to classes of information like confidential mental health data and individual security protocols, which have never been of concern to us. This contrasts with Ms. Lively’s excessively sweeping request for documents spanning a 2.5-year period, which the court appropriately nullified.”

Ryan Reynolds Submits Request for Exclusion

According to judicial records acquired by Us on March 18, 2025, Reynolds sought his removal from Baldoni’s retaliatory lawsuit, citing the director’s inability to “pinpoint any solitary purportedly defamatory statement” uttered by the performer.

“Mr. Baldoni’s entire legal argument seems to rest on Mr. Reynolds reportedly referring to Mr. Baldoni as a ‘predator’ in private; however, the issue is that this does not constitute defamation unless they can prove Mr. Reynolds did not believe the statement to be factual,” Reynolds’ legal representatives Gottlieb and Hudson informed Us. “The grievance does not assert this, and quite conversely, the claims within the complaint imply that Mr. Reynolds genuinely considers Mr. Baldoni to be a predator.”

Reynolds’ representative charged Baldoni with assembling “a catalog of complaints aiming to discredit Mr. Reynolds for embodying the persona Mr. Baldoni has cultivated his public image around, that of a man ‘assured enough to heed’ the women in his life.”

Baldoni Retaliates Against Reynolds

Freedman charged Reynolds with constant “abuse of his vast influence” through his efforts to withdraw from the legal proceedings.

“Mr. Reynolds played a pivotal role in the plot, slandering Justin throughout Hollywood, coercing WME into severing ties with Justin as a client, and attempting to sabotage Justin’s professional trajectory by any means available,” Baldoni’s attorney informed Us on March 19, 2025. “He has been intimately involved in this defamation campaign targeting Justin and the Wayfarer team from its inception.”

Lively Seeks to Annul Baldoni’s Retaliatory Lawsuit

The former Gossip Girl star employed a legal strategy akin to Reynolds, petitioning a judge to nullify Baldoni’s multi-million dollar lawsuit on March 20, 2025. Her legal counsel asserted that the legal action constituted “a severe misuse of the judicial system” which “ought not to be entertained in federal court.”

“California statute currently explicitly forbids initiating legal action against individuals who opt to speak out concerning sexual harassment or reprisal, whether through litigation or in public media,” Lively’s attorneys Gottlieb and Hudson informed Us. “This baseless and vindictive lawsuit directly conflicts with three legal impediments, encompassing the litigation, fair reporting, and sexual harassment immunities, the last of which includes a compulsory cost-shifting clause that will necessitate entities such as … Wayfarer Studios, and others who lodged trivial defamation claims against Ms. Lively, to pay compensation. In essence, in a monumental self-inflicted defeat, the Wayfarer Parties’ endeavor to financially ruin Ms. Lively ‘into non-existence’ has merely amplified their own accountability, and justifiably so, considering their conduct.”

Freedman vehemently criticized Lively’s most recent legal strategy, labeling it “among the most egregious instances of exploiting our judicial framework.”

“Rigorous regulations are established to safeguard the innocent and empower individuals to legitimately protect themselves,” Baldoni’s attorney retorted. “Statutes are not intended to be manipulated and shaped by influential elites to align with their personal objectives. As we articulated yesterday in response to Mr. Reynolds’ equally craven maneuvers, we will persist in holding Ms. Lively responsible for her genuinely malicious conduct, which includes falsely accusing my clients of harassment and retaliation. Her fabricated assertions will be rapidly discredited as the discovery process progresses, readily disproved by concrete, documentary evidence.”

Baldoni Includes Public Relations Professional in Legal Action

Baldoni revised his legal complaint to incorporate Stephanie Jones, whose public relations firm previously employed his former crisis management specialist Abel. His lawyers contended that Jones acquired Abel’s professional mobile device and transferred it to Team Lively, who subsequently extracted emails and text messages for use in their litigation.

“It is irrefutable that Stephanie Jones set in motion this disastrous series of events by infringing upon fundamental privacy rights, as well as any lingering confidence her clients had placed in her,” Freedman declared in a statement to Us on March 21, 2025. “Not new to instigating problematic situations for clients who are leaving, Ms. Jones deliberately provided communications from the phone she improperly seized from her own associate to her confederate Leslie Sloane, immediately after Jones’ employment was terminated for justifiable reasons by Wayfarer owing to her own improper conduct.”

Baldoni’s legal maneuver came after Jones initiated a lawsuit against Abel, Baldoni, and other parties. In her complaint, Jones accused them of coordinating a purported defamation campaign targeting Lively.

Jones’ representative Kristin Tahler informed Us: “Abel, Nathan, Baldoni, and their fellow defendants sought to realize these objectives through intimidation, misrepresentation, and explicit denigration. These details are substantiated by numerous communications included in the lawsuit we submitted a month prior and are beyond credible dispute. Lacking any factual basis or proof, we observe a predictable pattern — defaming our client, culminating in a fabricated account disguised as the counter-allegations lodged yesterday.”

Baldoni Justifies Legal Action Against Reynolds

On April 3, 2025, Baldoni’s legal representatives formally submitted documentation to contest Reynolds’ removal from their lawsuit. They characterized Reynolds as a “collaborator” in the defamation campaign and indicated the existence of “sufficient evidence” to warrant his inclusion in the legal action.

“The principal implication from the Wayfarer Parties’ objection to Ryan’s petition to discard their case is their belated recognition of the clear flaws in their accusation,” Reynolds’ representative communicated to Us in reply. “They once again assert defamation without specifying the defamed party, the precise content of the statements, or how any individual experienced demonstrable injury.”

They proceeded, “In contrast to Mr. Baldoni, who crafted his public image by purporting to be a man ‘secure enough to heed’ the women in his orbit, Ryan Reynolds is genuinely such an individual, and he will persist in supporting his spouse as she confronts those who not only subjected her to harassment but subsequently retaliated against her. According to New York law, California law, and indeed in every legal jurisdiction across the United States, this lawsuit is not merely destined to fail but could also result in the Wayfarer Parties being responsible for Ryan’s expenses and legal fees for initially pursuing such a baseless case.”

‘Total Destruction’

Lively’s legal representatives Hudson and Gottlieb provided a statement to Us on April 10, 2025, in which they charged Baldoni’s faction with employing “all-out legal warfare” to deter individuals from reporting sexual harassment complaints. The two attorneys implied Team Baldoni was “dismantling” legal safeguards for accusers through their judicial maneuvers.

“Mr. Baldoni has transitioned from leveraging a brand dedicated to validating and uplifting women, to spearheading efforts to undermine the very legislation that shields women who report sexual assault, harassment, and bias,” they communicated to Us. “California’s sexual harassment immunity, AB 933, was instated to prevent individuals engaging in sexual harassment from exploiting defamation lawsuits to financially destroy their accusers.”

Baldoni’s attorney Freedman retorted that Lively was the one who had exerted “premeditated efforts first to coerce and sway” others to act against his client.

“Ms. Lively and her influential Hollywood acquaintances cannot obstruct my clients from exercising their constitutional entitlement to seek judicial recourse to exonerate themselves from her untrue and damaging allegations,” Freedman further stated. “Ms. Lively’s objective is to establish a perilous precedent by denying my clients access to legal proceedings and penalizing them for seeking justice, a right safeguarded by the First Amendment.”

Marvel Addresses Baldoni’s Legal Action

Having been implicated in the contention because of the “Nicepool” character in Reynolds’ film Deadpool & Wolverine, Marvel Studios petitioned Judge Liman on April 29, 2025, to “annul the subpoena served on Marvel” and issue a “confidentiality order forbidding the revelation of Marvel’s proprietary documents” relating to upcoming plot details in the MCU.

“The demanded records are exceptionally delicate as they pertain to the evolution of a character within a continuing cinematic franchise,” their communication to the court indicated. “Marvel has achieved much of the MCU’s triumph by interweaving narratives, story arcs, and figures throughout its properties, including ‘intersectional’ occurrences and subsequent installments. The presence and manner of these components in forthcoming, unreleased endeavors is a matter of considerable public fascination, and Marvel rigorously protects this data.”

Baldoni’s legal representative answered: “My firm engaged in a telephonic discussion with Marvel’s counsel regarding the grievances, and despite our sincere attempts to tackle Marvel’s alleged issues concerning secrecy and pertinence, Marvel’s attorney interjected, declining to partake in that dialogue.”

“Instead, Marvel’s counsel intervened and stated his sole desire was to ascertain which documents the Wayfarer Parties ‘truly’ required, irrespective of the Subpoena’s demand for all materials pertaining to: (a) the conception, evolution, alteration, or depiction of Ryan Reynolds’ ‘Nicepool’ character from Deadpool & Wolverine; and (b) Justin Baldoni,” Freedman further explained.

Wayfarer Foundation Ceases Operations

On May 6, 2025, Baldoni’s philanthropic Wayfarer Foundation declared its closure, occurring during its co-founder’s contention with Lively.

“Throughout the last four years, the Wayfarer Foundation has assisted numerous grant recipients in achieving their objectives,” co-founder Sarowitz proclaimed on Instagram. “I am immensely proud of the influence this entity has wielded and profoundly thankful for our employees, leadership, benefactors, and collaborators.”

As per Sarowitz, the Wayfarer Foundation promptly initiated “the phase of gradually discontinuing the Foundation’s activities.”

“We intend to fulfill all existing grant obligations as we meticulously conclude operations over the coming weeks,” he promised. “While the Wayfarer Foundation is ceasing, my individual dedication to philanthropy persists robustly, and I am committed to positively affecting society through its continued purpose and endeavors.”

Lively Set to Give Testimony

In a surprising disclosure, Lively’s attorney Gottlieb informed People on May 8, 2025, that the performer intended to provide testimony in her 2026 court case against Baldoni.

“The opportune time for a plaintiff’s account to be presented 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 at her trial. Certainly, she will offer her testimony.”

Lively’s Attorney Criticizes Potential Taylor Swift Subpoena

Gottlieb additionally leveraged his discussion with People to dissuade Team Baldoni from serving a subpoena to Lively’s friend Swift, along with her spouse, Reynolds, for their 2026 trial.

“It remains entirely vague as to what claims or counterarguments, if any of these public figures … could possibly be pertinent to,” he lamented.

He subsequently contended: “This legal matter concerns the events Blake Lively experienced when she raised claims of sexual harassment on the set. It is not about the selection process for songs featured in the movie. It is not about imaginary Marvel figures in Deadpool films.”

Taylor Swift Served With Subpoena

Team Baldoni acted on their earlier warning by officially serving Swift with a subpoena related to the 2026 trial. Swift’s representative contended the subpoena lacked validity as the singer “was never physically present on the set of” It Ends With Us, nor did she influence “casting or artistic judgments.”

“She neither composed the movie’s score, nor did she ever review an edit or provide any feedback on the film,” her representative informed Us on May 9, 2025. “She did not even view It Ends With Us until several weeks post its public debut, and was engaged in a global tour throughout 2023 and 2024, headlining the most extensive tour ever.”

Swift’s representative reaffirmed that the artist’s sole link to It Ends With Us was granting permission for her track “My Tears Ricochet” to be featured in the hit film.

“Considering her role was limited to authorizing a song for the movie, an action also taken by 19 other musicians, this document subpoena appears intended to exploit Taylor Swift’s fame to garner public attention through sensationalized media, rather than addressing the factual merits of the lawsuit,” her representative maintained.

Swift requested the court to dismiss Team Baldoni’s subpoena on May 13, 2025.

Baldoni Resumes Instagram Activity

During speculations that Team Lively was investigating his financial history, Baldoni resumed his social media presence following a five-month pause to commemorate Mother’s Day.

“My mother instilled belief in us. My wife personifies it. Our offspring are being raised within the sanctuary of that affection,” he posted on Instagram on May 11, 2025, accompanying a family photograph. “Wishing all a joyful Mother’s Day.”

Taylor Swift Removed from Legal Action

On May 22, 2025, a party familiar with the situation informed Us that a legal order for Swift had been discreetly withdrawn, as “details were willingly furnished” to Baldoni’s legal representatives.

“We are satisfied that Justin Baldoni and the Wayfarer Parties have recalled their intrusive subpoenas issued to Taylor Swift and her legal practice,” Team Lively reacted in a declaration. “We endorsed the endeavors of Taylor’s team to nullify these improper subpoenas aimed at her legal advisor, and we will persist in advocating for any third party unfairly subjected to harassment or threats during these proceedings.”

They added, “From the outset, the Baldoni and Wayfarer team has endeavored to position Taylor Swift, an individual who has served as an icon for countless millions globally, at the core of this matter. Leveraging Taylor Swift’s fame was the initial strategy outlined in Melissa Nathan’s contingency planning document, and it persists to the present. When confronted with the necessity to legitimize themselves in federal court, they relented. Eventually, they will deplete their diversions from the genuine allegations of sexual harassment and retribution confronting them.”

Baldoni’s Legal Action Terminated

On June 9, 2025, Judge Liman formally approved Lively and Reynolds’ petition to throw out Baldoni’s $400 million retaliatory lawsuit, and also dismissed Baldoni’s defamation suit against The New York Times. However, the judge permitted Baldoni to re-submit with revised claims by June 23, 2025.

Lively’s legal representatives characterized Judge Liman’s ruling as “an absolute triumph and full exoneration” for her party.

“As we have maintained from the outset, this ‘$400 million’ legal action was a deception, and the Court clearly recognized it as such,” Team Lively informed Us in a declaration. “We anticipate the subsequent phase, which involves pursuing legal fees, triple compensation, and exemplary damages against Baldoni, Sarowitz, Nathan, and the other Wayfarer Parties who instigated this oppressive litigation.”

Lively Ends Her Silence

Mere hours after Baldoni’s retaliatory lawsuit was discharged, Lively marked the verdict with an ardent declaration on Instagram.

“Last week, I proudly aligned myself with 19 entities dedicated to upholding women’s prerogatives to advocate for their security,” she communicated to her Instagram audience on June 9, 2025. “Similar to numerous others, I have experienced the distress of a vindictive legal action, encompassing the contrived disgrace designed to undermine us.”

Lively observed: “Although the legal action against me was unsuccessful, a great many lack the means to resist. I am more determined than ever to persist in advocating for every woman’s entitlement to express herself in safeguarding her well-being, including her security, her honesty, her self-respect, and her personal narrative.”

Baldoni’s Legal Counsel Addresses Lawsuit Termination

Freedman informed Us in a declaration on June 10, 2025, that Team Lively’s “foreseeable proclamation of triumph” was “incorrect.”

“Although the Court discharged the defamation-linked assertions, it has extended an invitation for us to revise four of the seven claims against Ms. Lively, which will feature further evidence and more precise allegations,” Freedman explained. “This matter pertains to erroneous charges of sexual harassment and reprisal, along with a fabricated defamation effort, which Ms. Lively’s own group conveniently labels as ‘undetectable’ since they are unable to substantiate something that did not occur.”

Baldoni Opts Against Reinitiating Legal Action

On June 24, 2025, Baldoni’s legal representatives affirmed their decision not to submit a revised legal complaint against Lively and Reynolds, intending instead to concentrate on the evidence-gathering stage for their 2026 trial.

“The Court’s ruling regarding the motion to dismiss has absolutely no bearing on the fact that no harassment or defamation campaign occurred, and it in no manner impacts our robust defense against Ms. Lively’s assertions,” Freedman communicated to People.

High-Profile Subpoenas Interchanged

With the legal confrontation now centered on the 2026 trial, Team Lively petitioned Judge Liman on June 13, 2024, to issue a fresh “confidentiality order” to thwart Team Baldoni’s “persistent requests” concerning her exchanges with Swift. Lively’s attorneys asserted that Baldoni had not furnished “the records they publicly declared to have acquired as part of an agreement to retract their subpoenas” from Swift.

Concurrently, it was revealed that Team Lively intended to serve its own subpoenas to conservative analyst Candace Owens, podcast host Andy Signore, and internet blogger Perez Hilton.

“Considering I have yet to receive any subpoena, I am grateful for Blake’s team disclosing this information to TMZ to bring it to my attention,” Owens communicated to People in a declaration. “And, naturally, I have no inkling whatsoever as to the reason for my subpoena, as I was acquainted with none of these individuals when their respective legal actions were initiated. Nevertheless, remain updated, and I will inform my listeners on my podcast.”

Public Relations Executive Excluded from Lively’s Legal Action

On July 16, 2025, Judge Liman formally removed public relations specialist Jed Wallace from Lively’s revised lawsuit, citing a jurisdictional deficiency, as Wallace and his firm, Street Relations, operate out of Texas, not New York where Lively lodged her complaint. Lively had contended that Wallace participated in coordinating a defamation campaign against her on Baldoni’s behalf — an assertion the public relations executive repudiated.

“Ms. Lively defers to the Court’s judgment, which bears no relation to the substance of her claims concerning Mr. Wallace’s involvement in the defamation campaign, and pertains exclusively to the procedural query of whether he falls under New York’s jurisdiction or another,” a representative for Lively informed Us. “We are presently assessing our various avenues for holding Mr. Wallace responsible for the crucial function he performed in the punitive endeavor for which Justin Baldoni and the Wayfarer Parties remunerated him at least tens of thousands of dollars monthly.”

Lively’s Testimony Under Oath Occurs

Lively participated in her postponed deposition on July 31, 2025, in New York City. Baldoni, accompanied by his legal representatives, was present to observe the actress respond to inquiries concerning their on-set disagreement and continuing legal contention.

Conflict Over Disclosed Deposition

Four days subsequent to the sworn testimony, Team Lively charged Baldoni with attempting to release the complete “292-page transcript” into the public record as part of “a contrived pretext to compel the transcript into public circulation as material for the Wayfarer Defendants’ public relations initiative.”

“There exists no imaginable legal rationale to submit 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.

Baldoni’s attorney Freedman replied on August 6, 2025, to refute claims that his party sought to disclose the deposition transcript.

“[Blake] further neglects to clarify why any such ‘disclosure’ could not have stemmed from [Lively], her spouse [Reynolds], her several legal advisors, legal or administrative personnel from the law firm representing her (whose premises she insisted host the deposition), or the catering team employed therein who provided refreshments,” Freedman responded.

Lively Achieves Victory Regarding Deposition

On August 8, 2025, Judge Liman approved Team Lively’s petition to prohibit Team Baldoni from incorporating segments of her sworn testimony into the court record before the transcript was complete. Freedman had earlier appended a section of Lively’s transcript to a sealed court motion as corroborating material.

Isabela Ferrer Controversy Commences

Team Baldoni petitioned Judge Liman to oblige It Ends With Us actress Isabela Ferrer — who portrayed a youthful rendition of Lively’s character Lily in the film — to furnish text messages pertinent to the legal proceedings.

In the judicial document filed on August 12, 2025, Baldoni’s legal representatives claimed they had been unsuccessful in delivering a subpoena to Ferrer at various addresses and that the actress’s attorney had not responded to their appeal for data pertaining to the case. Team Baldoni requested “all records concerning any prejudiced, intimidating, punitive, improper, or unwelcome action, behavior, or declaration.”

Baldoni asserted that Lively compelled Ferrer to distance herself from him throughout the making of It Ends With Us.

Ferrer Charges Team Baldoni With ‘Intimidation’

Ferrer’s legal representatives claimed in judicial filings on August 18, 2025, that Team Baldoni was “pestering” her through “obvious attempts to pressure Ms. Ferrer” into disclosing communications with Lively. Her attorneys petitioned the court to reject Baldoni’s request for records and levy penalties against him.

“Baldoni has attempted to influence, intimidate, govern, and otherwise behave improperly towards Ms. Ferrer,” Ferrer’s legal counsel asserted.

Team Baldoni rejected those allegations on August 19, 2025, maintaining they were solely pursuing “records that [Ferrer] either failed to provide or that were not originally requested” when Lively first served her with a subpoena in February 2025.

Digital Communications Disclosed

On August 25, Judge Liman made public a collection of Baldoni’s text messages and emails that had previously been censored from one of Lively’s court submissions.

A particular message contained a dialogue between Baldoni and his public relations agent concerning an “instance of an individual harassing Blake” from his Instagram profile, which might not have been “a genuine account.” The publicist firmly stated that the message could have been authored by an “authentic provocateur” and was “categorically” not from anyone associated with Baldoni’s group.

A separate text message from Jamey Heath, Baldoni’s business associate, mentioned engaging a “crisis response squad” at a cost of “$9 million.”

“One simply must navigate every potential hazard to prevent its activation,” the text message from Heath stated. “And there is simply a great deal involved.”

Lively Pursues Substantial Compensation From Baldoni

Following the rejection of Baldoni’s retaliatory lawsuit in June 2025, Lively pursued a multi-million dollar settlement from the director in September 2025, citing purported misuse of the judicial framework. Us procured legal documents wherein Team Lively contended she was entitled to “justifiable legal expenses and charges for successfully defending [herself] in the court proceedings.” Lively intended to seek reparations for financial, emotional, and mental distress, in addition to the previously mentioned fees.

Lively referenced California’s Protecting Survivors from Weaponized Defamation Lawsuits Act, which “guarantees that persons who encounter sexual harassment or reprisal can recount their experiences to judicial bodies, governmental departments, news organizations, and others without apprehension of legal action for doing so.”

Baldoni’s legal representatives have maintained that the statute is inapplicable to Lively’s legal matter.

Taylor Swift Testimony Under Oath Controversy

In an astonishing turn of events, Us exclusively revealed on September 11 that Baldoni’s legal group submitted judicial records asserting that Swift “consented to appear” for a sworn testimony in October.

Nonetheless, Swift’s own legal counsel released a rebuttal to contradict any implication that the vocalist willingly offered to provide a sworn statement.

“As legal representatives for the involved parties are aware, from the very beginning of this case, we have steadfastly asserted that our client holds no substantial part in this proceeding,” Swift’s legal team communicated to Judge Liman on September 12. “Moreover, our client did not consent to a deposition, but if compelled to undergo one, we informed (having only learned about the deposition three days prior) that her availability would permit the necessary time during the week of October 20, provided the parties could resolve their disagreements. We play no part in those disagreements.”

Team Lively sharply criticized Freedman’s portrayal of Swift’s deposition as voluntary and highlighted that a suggested late October date would occur past the deadline for the evidence-gathering stage.

“In this context, [Baldoni and his team’s] absence of industriousness, and disregard for [Swift’s] personal space and agenda, is staggering,” Lively’s attorney contended on September 12, 2025. ”Evidence collection has been in progress for over half a year, and [Swift] is a person whose itinerary should be assumed to be fully booked with career commitments months ahead. At any juncture during the past six months, [Baldoni’s team] could have scheduled a deposition, issued a subpoena, and arranged a mutually acceptable time and venue for this sworn testimony. Yet, they failed to do so.”

On September 13, 2025, Judge Liman determined that no postponement would be granted for Swift’s deposition, as Team Baldoni had unduly delayed commencing the procedure.

“The sole rationale they have furnished for the deferral is their claim that Swift’s prior professional engagements currently preclude her from attending a deposition before October 20, 2025,” he penned.

The judge further stated, “Evidence-gathering in this case has been underway for approximately half a year. They have presented no proof of having issued a fresh subpoena to Swift… Having failed to exhibit adequate diligence, the requested postponement is refused.”

Baldoni Secures Legal Counsel Formerly Representing Diddy

On September 15, 2025, Team Baldoni augmented its legal team by enlisting Alexandra Shapiro, who had previously acted on behalf of discredited magnate Sean “Diddy” Combs and FTX originator Sam Bankman-Fried.

Baldoni Faces Legal Action From ‘The New York Times’

On October 1, 2025, The New York Times Company officially initiated legal proceedings against Baldoni’s production firm, Wayfarer Studios LLC, in response to the actor’s discharged defamation lawsuit.

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” connected to Baldoni’s legal endeavor. The media entity charged Baldoni with contravening New York’s anti-SLAPP legislation, which guards against lawsuits intended to “suppress the right to free expression and badger publishers by obliging them to dedicate time and assets to unfounded legal battles.”

“It is now universally accepted that journalistic reporting on subjects of public concern is encompassed by the legal framework,” the New York Times lawsuit maintained.

Freedman addressed the Times’ legal action by informing People that Baldoni would persist in pursuing justice “regardless of the outcome.”

“We decline to yield to influential figures, even when confronted with seemingly insurmountable challenges,” the attorney declared. “We persist in our resolve for a fundamental purpose: the quest for veracity, despite formidable adversaries.”

‘It Ends With Us’ Actors Testify Under Oath

On October 17, 2025, reports indicated that It Ends With Us actors Slate and Ferrer, along with book writer Colleen Hoover, all underwent sworn testimony as part of the evidence-gathering phase.

Slate and Ferrer purportedly participated in depositions during the summer months, while Hoover recently provided sworn testimony regarding her awareness of the contention between Lively and Baldoni.

‘Concealed Communications’ Controversy

Us acquired judicial filings submitted by Team Lively on October 23, 2025, wherein they charged Team Baldoni with “conceal[ing] crucial information at every juncture in the evidence collection process, either by neglecting to furnish documents or inappropriately shielding them under attorney-client confidentiality.”

“Now that the situation has stabilized, and factual investigation and sworn testimonies have concluded, two aspects are evident,” Lively’s group asserted. “There exists considerable proof that the punitive initiative was, in reality, executed as conceived.”

Lively’s lawyers asked the court to penalize Baldoni because his legal team “eliminated and/or neglected to maintain or present additional material and highly relevant evidence, the absence of which they intend to try to unjustly exploit in their favor.”

Team Baldoni did not promptly issue a statement regarding the legal request.

Lively Asserts ‘It Ends With Us’ Producer Failed to Provide Footage of Wife’s Childbirth

As per correspondence acquired by People on November 3, 2025, Lively’s legal representatives urged Judge Lewis J. Liman to “penalize” producer Jamey Heath, following his purported failure to submit “specific items” requested by September 2, 2025, among which was “the video Mr. Heath displayed to Ms. Lively on the movie set, depicting his entirely nude wife during the domestic delivery of their infant.” Lively contends that Heath presented the alleged footage to her “without prior notice or permission.”

Lively additionally asserted that she has “repeatedly contested” that the three-minute video Heath has provided differs from the clip she viewed on the set of It Ends With Us. Notwithstanding Heath’s earlier declarations of possessing no other videos, Lively contended that Heath has been “deliberately and intentionally concealing” pertinent facts, thereby denying her the opportunity to confront it during his sworn testimony.

According to the news source, Lively requested Judge Liman to “mandate” Heath to furnish all recordings associated with the childbirth video within a three-day period. She also sought an injunction preventing Heath from presenting any evidence, whether verbal or written testimony, pertaining to his display of the birth footage.

Us Weekly attempted to contact Baldoni for a statement.

Baldoni Purposely Overlooks Submission Cutoff

Subsequent to Us’ exclusive revelation in November 2025 that Baldoni did not fail to meet a deadline for lodging an appeal after a judge dismissed the lawsuit against Lively, but instead that his legal representatives had no initial intention to file, the director’s attorney addressed the trial publicly.

“The factual narrative concerning this case is perpetually and utterly misrepresented in news coverage. Even a straightforward procedural update has led to complete distortion. At this juncture, we must clarify the facts: no deadlines were overlooked. Our clients opted not to revise their complaint to safeguard their rights to appeal,” Freedman communicated to The Daily Mail in a November 2025 declaration.

“Concurrently, our focus is on Ms. Lively’s allegations,” Freedman proceeded. “We maintain our complete dedication to pursuing the truth via every accessible legal and evidentiary channel and anticipate our day in court.”

At that time, Us attempted to contact Lively’s legal representatives for a statement.

Judge Rejects Allegations Against Jed Wallace

A federal justice set aside Lively’s assertions against Wallace — a social media advisor operating from Texas — on November 5, 2025.

As per the judiciary, Lively did not establish that Wallace possessed adequate ties to New York to warrant a lawsuit in that jurisdiction.

“The court’s judgment today concerned exclusively the proper venue for legal action against Jed Wallace. The court determined that Ms. Lively’s allegations against him ought to be, and can be, presented in an alternative court,” Lively’s representative communicated to Us in a declaration. “Ms. Lively is currently assessing her numerous alternatives for achieving this. This outcome bears no influence on her case against Baldoni, Heath, Sarowitz, Nathan, Abel, Wayfarer, and The Agency Group, all of whom she anticipates confronting in court in New York at the March trial.”

Baldoni’s legal counsel, however, had an alternative response to the judge’s determination.

“We appreciate the court’s directive today, which affirms that the assertions against Mr. Wallace were never appropriate for this court,” Freedman stated to Us. “Claims that he was involved in any defamation campaign lack substantiation, and all charges against him have been discharged by this court. The remaining defendants anticipate their time in court, where they will demonstrate the absence of merit in Ms. Lively’s claims against them.”

A judge similarly rejected Wallace’s allegations against Lively.

“Consequent to this ruling, all vindictive lawsuits initiated against Blake Lively by Justin Baldoni, Wayfarer Studios, and their crisis communications and digital divisions have been set aside,” a representative for Lively informed Us in a declaration. “Ms. Lively will present her case in court regarding her allegations at the March trial in New York.”

Lively Pursues Reparations and Identifies Prospective Testifiers

Us secured fresh judicial records submitted by Team Lively in July 2025 and disclosed that November. Within these transparency forms, Lively asserted she incurred at least $161 million in losses due to Baldoni’s purported sexual harassment and “defamation campaign.” (Baldoni has consistently repudiated any impropriety during the production of It Ends With Us and maintained his non-involvement in any smear campaign.)

Lively’s team detailed that her financial setbacks totaled $56.2 million for current and anticipated income from her performing profession, public speaking events, and promotional deals, in addition to $49 million in probable losses from her cosmetic line, Blake Brown, and $22 million from her drink enterprise, Betty Buzz/Betty Booze. The records outlined various other related expenses that Lively is pursuing from Baldoni, including $34 million for harm to her public standing.

Team Lively’s most recent submission alluded to certain public figures who might be summoned to provide testimony at the March 2026 trial. Her legal representatives indicated that Reynolds, Swift, Emily Blunt, Scooter Braun, Hugh Jackman, and Gigi Hadid, along with numerous others, are “expected to possess pertinent information” concerning the It Ends With Us workplace disagreement.