Marvel Won’t Have to Turn Over ‘Highly Confidential’ Documents About Development of Ryan Reynolds’ Nicepool After Judge Tosses Justin Baldoni’s Defamation Case

by

As I sat down in the theater, eagerly awaiting Marvel’s 2024 blockbuster “Deadpool & Wolverine,” the introduction of a new character, Nicepool, left me on the edge of my seat for an unprecedented four minutes. This screen time has undoubtedly been under the microscope of fans and critics alike, as we all pondered what impact this fresh face would have on the storyline.

On Monday, Judge Lewis Liman dismissed Justin Baldoni’s defamation lawsuit against Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds. Consequently, Marvel will no longer need to disclose “proprietary and extremely confidential” documents and communications related to the creation of Ryan Reynolds’ Nicepool character. However, Judge Liman has given Baldoni the opportunity to revise his complaint concerning contract interference by June 23rd. Nonetheless, the subpoena for Nicepool materials was associated with the dropped defamation allegations.

The action is a result of extended discussions, back-and-forth exchanges really, regarding this issue among Baldoni’s lawyers and the studio, who were attempting to prevent the director from acquiring the material as part of his ongoing legal dispute with Lively.

On January 7th, Bryan Freedman, representing Baldoni, issued a letter demanding preservation of all pertinent documents and data concerning Baldoni to Marvel president Kevin Feige and Disney CEO Bob Iger. This letter was sent one week prior to Baldoni filing a lawsuit for civil extortion, defamation, and invasion of privacy against Lively and Reynolds, claiming they had attempted to ruin him using fabricated harassment allegations and a suspected smear campaign, for which they demanded $400 million. Marvel was summoned on February 14th.

Disney declined comment.

Baldoni’s legal team has contended that Reynolds deliberately mocked and tormented Baldoni during a four-minute sequence in Marvel’s “Deadpool & Wolverine,” which Disney released in July. In the film, Reynolds portrayed “Nicepool,” an offensive alter ego of the main character Deadpool, and delivered lines such as “Where on earth is the intimacy coordinator?!” while praising Ladypool for returning to her pre-pregnancy form. These lines mirror aspects of Lively’s allegations against Baldoni and two of his publicists, in which she accuses them of sexual harassment during the filming of “It Ends With Us” and a subsequent defamation campaign following her accusations about mistreatment on set.

In the same scene as Ladypool, Lively accused Baldoni of sexually harassing and making derogatory comments about her postpartum body, alleging fat-shaming. When Deadpool called out Nicepool’s hypocrisy in this scene, he responded, “That’s fine, I consider myself a feminist.” Notably, during the creation, filming, and promotion of “It Ends With Us,” a movie focusing on domestic violence, Baldoni frequently boasted about his commitment to feminism and support for women.

On April 2nd, the lawyer Adam Levin from Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp, representing the studio, wrote to Freedman, requesting him to retract the subpoena. He argued that revealing the documents could significantly damage Marvel and the information was not relevant to the case at hand. The requested documents are sensitive as they pertain to the creation of a character within an ongoing movie series. Marvel has achieved much of its success by linking storylines, plots, and characters across titles, including “crossover” events and sequels. Details about upcoming, unreleased projects that involve such elements generate significant public interest, and Marvel carefully guards this information. The Marvel attorney asked Freedman to postpone the subpoena’s return date until after the court decides Reynolds’ motion to dismiss.

On April 25th, Jacob Albertson, an attorney representing Marvel, penned a letter to Judge Liman, asking him to invalidate the subpoena issued to Baldoni. Albertson presented arguments similar to those made by Levin before and also stated that providing any documents or communications regarding Baldoni would be excessively difficult. He further explained, “The parties involved in Wayfarer have other, more feasible methods to acquire relevant information (if it exists), such as a request for confirmation or a deposition of a party.

Three days after this, lawyers Mitchell Schuster and Kevin Fritz from Meister Seelig & Fein, representing Baldoni, responded to Judge Liman with a letter. In it, they argued that Marvel had not provided a convincing reason for why the subpoena was excessively burdensome, considering the agreement by the Wayfarer Parties to narrow its scope. Moreover, Marvel did not claim that the cost of finding and delivering the requested documents would be excessive. (It’s worth noting that Freedman’s initial litigation hold letter was much broader and required Marvel to preserve all communications related to Tim Miller, the director of the first “Deadpool” movie, but who didn’t return for the sequel or “Deadpool & Wolverine.” It’s common knowledge that Miller and Reynolds had disagreements.)

Marvel’s proposal that the Wayfarer Parties gather details about ‘Nicepool’ from all parties involved, including Ryan Reynolds himself, seems disingenuous since Marvel simultaneously requests a court order preventing any party or outside entity from disclosing Marvel’s confidential documents in this case,” Schuster and Fritz pointed out.

The lawyers contended that the subpoena demands records solely related to a character named “Nicepool,” who featured in one previously released movie. They emphasize that this character is exclusive to that film, as he does not appear in any other Marvel cinematic series and will not be seen again since he was killed off in “Deadpool & Wolverine.

The letter raised concerns about Marvel’s decision to delay action while considering Reynolds’ request to dismiss. It pointed out that Reynolds himself had not requested nor received a halt in the discovery process related to his dismissal motion. Furthermore, it argued that there were insufficient reasons to dismiss the charges against Reynolds. Even if claims against Reynolds were dismissed permanently, the information sought in the subpoenas would still be relevant for the lawsuit against Lively, as the Wayfarer Parties believe Reynolds was acting on behalf of Lively.

The dispute between Baldoni and Marvel is just a minor conflict compared to the larger struggle between the director and his “It Ends With Us” co-star. At present, there are several lawsuits related to “It Ends With Us,” with the latest one being filed by Baldoni’s Wayfarer Studios against his former publicist Stephanie Jones, whom he accuses of maliciously leaking text messages that ignited this whole situation. In the midst of all this back-and-forth, Baldoni is both suing and being sued by Lively concerning events on the set of and leading up to the release of the 2024 domestic violence drama.

On Monday, lawyers for Lively rejoiced over Judge Liman’s verdict. They stated, “From the very beginning, we maintained that this $400 million lawsuit was a hoax, and the court has indeed recognized it as such.” This was said on June 9, following the lawsuit’s dismissal. “We eagerly anticipate the upcoming phase,” they continued, “which involves seeking legal fees, triple damages, and punitive damages against Baldoni and other Wayfarer Parties involved in this malicious litigation.” In response, Baldoni’s legal team has pledged to carry on the battle, asserting that Lively’s claims of victory are false. As Bryan Freedman, Baldoni’s lawyer, expressed to EbMaster, “Although the court dismissed defamation-related claims, it has allowed us to revise four out of seven accusations against Lively. This revision will present new evidence and refined allegations. The essence of this case is about unproven accusations of sexual harassment and a non-existent smear campaign, which Lively’s team conveniently describes as ‘untraceable’ because they cannot substantiate events that did not occur.

There’s been a lot of debate about the importance of the fictional character Nicepool in a legal dispute stemming from the film “It Ends With Us,” which was produced by Sony and not related to the Deadpool franchise. However, Baldoni’s lawyers argue that hints or clues were purposely left for viewers. In the credits of “Deadpool & Wolverine,” the actor portraying Nicepool is credited as “Gordon Reynolds” instead of Ryan Reynolds, who typically plays Deadpool. Later in “It Ends With Us,” Lively thanked Gordon Reynolds in the credits, creating a connection to Nicepool. Interestingly, Lively herself has used language similar to that used in “Deadpool & Wolverine” when referring to Nicepool on social media. On July 22, she posted on Instagram tagging @deadpoolmovie and @itendswithusmovie, writing about “nice men who use feminism as a tool.

As a devoted cinema enthusiast, I can’t help but notice the buzz surrounding the ongoing legal saga between Marvel and certain cast members of “It Ends With Us.” The attention this case has garnered predates the actual lawsuits, with fans picking up on seemingly trivial social media activities like the cast members unfollowing each other last summer before the film’s release. The chatter is still ongoing, with recent reports suggesting that Travis Kelce has unfollowed Reynolds on Instagram. Despite being frequently linked to this drama due to her friendship with Lively during the making of “It Ends With Us,” Taylor Swift seems to be maintaining a safe distance from the unfolding events.

Read More

2025-06-10 22:19