How the Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni Legal Drama Ends, to Us

by

On January 16th, Justin Baldoni filed a lawsuit against Blake Lively, Ryan Reynolds, and their public representative, accusing them of slander by asserting publicly that he mistreated Lively during the filming of “It Ends With Us“. According to the lawsuit, Lively, Reynolds, and Leslie Sloane “made one or more statements to individuals, including but not limited to the New York Times, suggesting that [he] participated in, allowed, and/or neglected to prevent sexually inappropriate behavior towards Lively and others”. Baldoni, with representatives Melissa Nathan and Jennifer Abel, also charge that team Lively’s claims of retaliation were used to spread false and misleading stories about Lively with the intention of harming her image and reputation.

The lawsuit filed by Baldoni marks a new development in an ongoing legal dispute that commenced on December 21 when the New York Times published a damaging report about Lively’s accusations against Baldoni regarding mistreatment during filming. This article mentioned Lively’s complaint to California’s Civil Rights Department, potentially hinting at a labor lawsuit against Baldoni, and alleged that his crisis management team attempted to harm Lively’s reputation. According to the New York Times, Baldoni (also the movie’s director and writer) and his team were concerned that Lively’s allegations of inappropriate sexual comments might become public, so they chose to act proactively. On December 31, Baldoni sued the New York Times for libel, claiming that their reporters used selective information and manipulated communications by removing essential context and intentionally editing them to mislead.

Regarding the accusations made by Lively, Baldoni’s lawyers are reportedly stating that these allegations are entirely unfounded, excessively sensational, and deliberately intended to harm and sensationalize a story in the media. The dropping of news on New Year’s Eve escalated when Lively filed a lawsuit against Baldoni and his PR team in the Manhattan federal court. In this lawsuit, Lively has asserted claims such as sexual harassment and intentionally causing emotional distress. Just a few days earlier, Stephanie Jones, who had worked with Baldoni on press matters, filed her own lawsuit in Manhattan against Baldoni and his representatives, Nathan and Abel. In her December 24th lawsuit, she alleged that they conspired secretly to orchestrate a smear campaign against Lively. Her legal team has stated that this lawsuit is necessary to halt the defendants’ ongoing misconduct and for Stephanie to regain the reputation she spent decades building and which the defendants maliciously tarnished for their own harmful purposes.

As a movie enthusiast, it’s hard not to notice the surge of high-profile defamation cases lately that make headlines. For instance, E. Jean Carroll was awarded a massive $83.3 million in her defamation trial against Donald Trump following a previous win of $5 million for sexual abuse and defamation the year before. In another case, two Georgia poll workers received an impressive $148 million in their defamation trial against Rudy Giuliani. YouTuber Tasha K. found herself owing Cardi B close to $4 million due to defamation. And who can forget Johnny Depp’s $15 million damages win against his ex, Amber Heard, while also owing her $2 million in a counter-defamation claim?

The Lively-Baldoni drama has sparked discussions reminiscent of the #MeToo movement. Some viewers believe that the actress may have faced gender-based mistreatment and an institutional reluctance to hold those in power, like directors and producers, accountable for their actions. Others view these ongoing disputes as nothing more than high-stakes workplace drama involving larger-than-life personalities.

Here’s another situation that seems reminiscent of the Depp vs Heard case, could we say? Experts in crisis communication and law suggest some possible outcomes based on their analyses.

Scenario one: It’s a stalemate.

Juda Engelmayer, a seasoned PR and crisis management specialist representing figures like Harvey Weinstein, expressed his viewpoint that no clear winner has emerged yet in the ongoing dispute between Justin and Blake Lively. Since the legal proceedings are still at their initial stages, public opinion is shaping the court of judgment currently. In his words, “This situation seems to be a standoff. There are those who back Justin’s stance, while others support Blake Lively. I don’t believe anyone has thoroughly examined the facts.” Engelmayer likened it to a popularity contest at this stage, further stating that “there are people predisposed to side with the woman, and there are those who get frustrated whenever a woman speaks out, feeling that her words are immediately accepted as truth.

Scenario two: All lawsuits are settled.

As a fervent admirer, I can’t help but imagine two prominent figures embroiled in a court battle, reminiscent of the dramatic backstage shenanigans portrayed in Ryan Murphy’s Feud. However, Tre Lovell, a seasoned lawyer in the heart of LA, doesn’t seem to envision this unfolding as an exciting courtroom spectacle.

Lively and Baldoni’s legal disputes will undoubtedly be resolved. Prolonged litigation for the next two years would not serve either party well. Instead, the focus should be on publicity, with lawsuits taking a secondary role. As Lovell points out, what matters most to both parties is their reputation, their personal brand, and their ability to secure work. In essence, these cases are serving as effective public relations tools, leading to a significant increase in visibility from both sides.

As the trial approaches, there are significant risks involved. Both parties will need to submit additional public records to safeguard their individual reputations.

Lovell stated that they aim to present their perspective, enhance their reputation, and safeguard their identity. He added that if the matter proceeds in court for another two years, neither party will profit from it. The case would involve depositions and written discoveries, which could be leaked, damaging their brand permanently.

Scenario three: Lively and Baldoni go to trial.

In most legal disputes, both parties usually reach an agreement through settlement. However, this can only occur if all involved parties are in accord. As of now, the parties in question have yet to find common ground. This situation bears a striking resemblance to the Depp-Heard case. Typically, I’d estimate there’s a 99% chance of settlement before trial because trials involve significant risk and expense, and they can take several years to be resolved. Camron Dowlatshahi, an attorney from MSD Lawyers who specializes in sexual harassment cases, made this observation.

In this specific situation, the likelihood appears to be significantly increased due to two well-known individuals who are highly emotional and invested. It seems that their primary concern isn’t money, but rather restoring their reputation. The only method for this to occur transparently seems to be through a public trial. A settlement is usually kept confidential, so the details regarding what initiated the dispute and led both parties to resolve it remain largely unknown in the public eye.

Scenario four: Lively wins.

Unlike Lively, Baldoni isn’t as widely recognized. If you haven’t watched his movies, you might not have known who he was until the legal drama unfolded. This could make his endeavors more difficult for him. In this case, the jury will be faced with a tough decision: Who do they believe more – Ms. Lively or Mr. Baldoni? The trial’s outcome will hinge on a thorough examination of their credibility by the jury. There will be significant transparency in the lawsuit and there will be a battle over how much access the press will have to the courtroom during hearings and the trial, according to Kimberly C. Lau, chair of the Title IX and education practice group at Offit Kurman.

In Lau’s words, “The level of fame or obscurity of a celebrity can influence how the public views a case. Famous celebrities often receive more favorable opinions because they attract more public backing with less scrutiny. People tend to be reluctant to believe that their beloved star could engage in wrongdoing. This sentiment extends to the lawyers representing the celebrity, as their courtroom behavior significantly impacts the public’s perception of the celebrity involved in the legal dispute.

According to what’s claimed in Ms. Lively’s lawsuit, and what we will demonstrate during the court proceedings, Wayfarer and its allies have acted illegally by retaliating through astroturfing against Ms. Lively when she was just trying to ensure safety on a film set. Her representatives further explained that instead of addressing her lawsuit, they have continued their attacks against Ms. Lively since the filing was made.

Scenario five: The New York Times defends itself.

Typically, for high-profile individuals like Baldoni, a successful defamation lawsuit requires proving that a media outlet knowingly published false information and disregarded this fact. If The Times was provided inaccurate or misleading information, but made diligent efforts to verify, report accurately, and seek comments before publishing, they would not be held responsible. California law also provides additional protection against defamation claims, emphasizing the significance of proving actual malice. Roy S. Gutterman, director of the Tully Center for Free Speech at Syracuse University’s Newhouse School, believes that Baldoni’s allegations against The Times are intended to discourage reporting.

In an email, Gutterman stated that the lawsuit against the New York Times seems to be a retaliation for the media’s duty to report on significant public issues. He added that suing the press in this manner sends a warning to other news organizations. However, simply disliking a news story does not make it untrue or defamatory. This action appears to be an attempt to suppress, intimidate, and punish the media. In response, the Times stated they would strongly contest Baldoni’s lawsuit. They explained that their role is to investigate facts thoroughly and report responsibly. The article was carefully researched using thousands of original documents, including texts and emails accurately quoted in the piece. Moreover, the Times shared the information they intended to publish with Baldoni’s team and informed them about any potential inaccuracies or missing context. In summary, the Times vowed to vigorously defend against the lawsuit.

Read More

2025-01-16 21:54