March 23, 2025 • 24 mins
This sassy, gossip-driven narrative details the explosive legal battle between "It Ends With Us" co-stars Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni. Written in the voice of fictional host Vivian Steele, the article chronicles recent developments including Lively's motion to dismiss Baldoni's $400 million lawsuit, Ryan Reynolds' involvement, protective court orders granted to Lively, and Baldoni's determination to avoid settlement before the 2026 trial date. The piece captures the Hollywood drama through Vivian's witty, insider perspective while explaining the serious allegations of sexual harassment, smear campaigns, and defamation claims that have turned a film promotion into a high-stakes legal war. Looking for more entertaining deep dives into celebrity drama? Head over to https://www.quietperiodplease.com/ for more engaging podcasts that will keep you in the know with all the hottest Hollywood tea, delivered with the same flair and insider perspective!
This content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI
This content was created in partnership and with the help of Artificial Intelligence AI
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey there, gorgeous gossip getters, it's your girl, Vivian Steels,
sliding into your ears with some piping hot Hollywood tea
that's been brewing to absolute perfection. Welcome to another episode
of Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni, where we dissect the drama,
unpack the tea, and serve it to you straight. No
chaser needed. Today, we're diving deep into the legal battle
(00:21):
that's got Tinseltown talking, Hollywood lawyer's billing, and social media
absolutely melting down. So grab your notepad because class is
in session and Professor Vivian is about to walk you
through this masterclass in celebrity chaos. Darlings. If you thought
the Drama And It Ends with Us was intense, let
me tell you the real life saga between its stars
(00:42):
makes the movie look like a Disney Afternoon special. We're
talking lawsuits, counter lawsuits, protective orders, and ego battles that
would make even the real housewives say, maybe tone it
down a notch. This feud has officially reached nuclear levels,
with both sides digging their designer heels in for what's
shaping up to be the celebrity legal battle of the decade.
(01:05):
So let's rewind the tape of Smidge for those of
you who might have been living under a rock or
worse without Wi Fi. Back in December twenty twenty four,
Blake Lively dropped a bombshell that sent shockwaves through Hollywood
when she filed a sexual harassment complaint against her. It
ends with US co star and director Justin Baldoni. We're
(01:26):
not talking about a little on set tension here, folks.
Lively accused Baldoni of misconduct during production and wait for it,
orchestrating a calculated smear campaign designed to absolutely demolish her reputation.
Scandalous doesn't even begin to cover it. Baldoni, naturally, wasn't
about to take these allegations lying down. By January, he
(01:49):
fired back with a four hundred million dollar lawsuit against Lively,
her husband Ryan Reynolds, Yes, Deadpool himself got dragged into
this mess, and their publicist, Les Sloan. The lawsuit threw
around some pretty hefty accusations, including extortion and defamation. Four
hundred million dollars. People, that's not just lawsuit money, that's
(02:13):
I want to financially eviscerate you money now. In the
most recent chapter of this saga, Lively has filed a
motion to dismiss Baldoni's lawsuit entirely, calling it a profound
abuse of the legal process. She's not just filing any
old motion, Darlings, She's invoking a California law specifically designed
(02:33):
to protect people who speak out about sexual harassment or retaliation.
It's like she's saying, not only are you wrong, honey,
but the entire legal system is on my side. That
is what we in the business call a power move.
And Lively isn't fighting this battle alone. Her husband, Ryan Reynolds, who,
let's be honest, is probably stress eating Chimichanga's in his
(02:55):
Deadpool costume at this point, also filed his own motion
to dismiss Baldonie's claims against him. Reynolds's legal team essentially
argued that calling someone a predator in private isn't defamation
if you genuinely believe it to be true, the legal
equivalent of I said what I said, and I meant
it now. Baldoni's attorney, Brian Friedman, who is rapidly becoming
(03:20):
a character in this drama worthy of his own spinoff,
fired back at these dismissal attempts with the kind of
dramatic flare that makes me wonder if he practices his
statements in front of a mirror. First, he called Lively's
motion one of the most abhorrent examples of abusing our
legal system, which coming from a lawyer is like a
chef calling someone else's cooking poison the drama, darlings the drama.
(03:47):
Freedman didn't stop there. In a recent podcast appearance that
had the legal and entertainment worlds absolutely gagging, he claimed
that Baldoni has been destroyed by Lively's accusations. According to
this legal eagle, the only way for Baldoni to salvage
his reputation is to prove his innocence in court. In
this day and age, the only way that you can
(04:08):
truly get back is to prove your innocence, and that's
what we're actively working to do, Friedman said, essentially confirming
what many of us suspected. A settlement before the scheduled
twenty twenty six trial is about as likely as me
turning down front row tickets to Fashion Week. But wait,
there's more. In what must feel like a small victory
(04:29):
in this massive war, Lively recently scored a significant win
when Judge Lewis Lyman granted her request for a protective order.
This means certain discoveries in the case, particularly highly personal
and intimate information about third parties, will be for attorney's
eyes only. Translation, all the juicy, potentially career damaging details
(04:52):
that lawyers uncover won't be accessible to Lively Baldoni or sadly,
for us gossip connoisseur, he's the public. The judge was
concerned about the risk of disclosure and the potential spread
of gossip and innuendo. M excuse me, your honor, but
spreading gossip and innuendo is literally my job description. Baldoni's
(05:16):
legal team, while not objecting to keeping certain material away
from the press in public smart Move, argued that not
being able to share findings with their clients would make
the case difficult to litigate. I mean, imagine trying to
fight a lawsuit where you can't even see half the evidence.
It's like playing poker with a blindfold. Challenging, to say
(05:36):
the least. The timing of all this couldn't be more
dramatic if it had been scripted by Shonda Rhimes herself.
Lively has been making a carefully orchestrated return to the
public eye, appearing at the SNL fifty anniversary special in
February and strutting down the red carpet at SXSW for
the premiere of another Simple Favor earlier this month. It's
(05:58):
the classic celebrity move. While your personal life might be
erupting in flames, your professional persona remains unfhazed, unbothered, and
unnaturally photogenic. Now, let's talk about a fascinating subplot in
this Hollywood saga, Baldoni's beef with The New York Times. Yes,
you heard that right. Our director actor is also waging
(06:21):
war against one of the most powerful newspapers in the world.
Baldoni is fighting tooth and nail to keep The Times
included in his legal action, responding to their attempt to
be dropped from the case with a memorandum arguing that
this dispute should be resolved by a jury at trial.
The Times had previously secured a win when Judge Lyman
put a stay on any further discovery into their files
(06:44):
while their dismissal motion works through the courts. Baldoni's team
didn't mince words in their opposition to the NYT's dismissal request,
calling the paper a pietistic bastion of the media establishment
that has long presumed itself beyond accountability. Darlings, I haven't
heard that kind of literary shade since my college professor
(07:04):
critiqued my thesis on fashion journalism. The document went on
to accuse The Times of going past merely reporting on
plaintiff Blake Lively's California Civil Rights Department complaint and actively
vouched for the veracity of its false narrative. In other words,
Baldoni's team is accusing the paper of not just reporting
(07:25):
the news but taking sides juicy. The Times, naturally, wasn't
about to let that slide, with Communications SVP Danielle rhodes
Haw telling Deadline that the flaws in the Baldoni wayfarer
case were made clear last week in their own legal
filing when they asked the court for yet another opportunity
to amend their complaint to try to make it legally sufficient.
(07:49):
Oh the sass, the shade. The Times essentially said, your
lawsuit is so poorly constructed you keep having to fix it,
so maybe focus on that instead of coming for I
live for this level of professional pettiness. Now you might
be wondering how we got here. How did the stars
of a film adaptation of a popular book about toxic
(08:11):
relationships end up in such a toxic real life situation.
The allegations at the center of this firestorm are serious
and multifaceted. Lively's complaint alleges that Baldoni inserted unscripted and
unwelcome kisses during filming, frequently discussed his struggles with pornography,
addiction and detailed sexual experiences, and even entered her trailer
(08:32):
without permission while she was nursing her baby. These are
heavy accusations that go far beyond the typical creative differences
we often hear about on film sets. One particularly explosive
element of Lively's complaint is the allegation of a coordinated
smear campaign against her. She claims Baldoni and his team
engaged in astroturfing, essentially creating fake grassroots support, or, in
(08:56):
this case, manufactured negative publicity to destroy her reputation after
she spoke up about misconduct on set. Lively's legal filing
described this as a sophisticated press and digital plan in
retaliation for mis Lively exercising her legally protected right to
speak up about their misconduct on the set. In the
(09:17):
era of social media and rapid fire news cycles, reputation
is currency, and Lively is essentially accusing Baldoni of counterfeiting.
The plot thickened even further when Lively and Reynolds recently
sent out subpoenas to major cell carriers like AT and T,
T Mobile, and Verizon, as well as to Jed Wallace,
(09:37):
who Lively alleges was a key player in the smear
campaign against her. Her attorneys made it clear their hunting
for receipts, stating that miss Lively has initiated discovery that
will expose the people, tactics, and methods that have worked
to destroy and bury her reputation and family over the
past year. Talk about bringing out the big guns. This
(09:59):
move suggests Lively's team believes there's concrete evidence of the
alleged smear campaign lurking in text messages and other communications.
And speaking of Jed Wallace, who describes himself as a
human crisis navigator, he's now launched his own seven million
dollar defamation suit against Lively. Wallace's lawyer admitted this action
as in response to Wallace's likely addition to Lively's ongoing
(10:21):
legal battles. It's like the legal equivalent of you can't
fire me, I quit, or in this case, you can't
sue me, I'll sue you first. What makes this case
particularly fascinating from a legal perspective is how both sides
are trying to control the narrative, not just in the
court of public opinion, but in the actual courtroom. Earlier
(10:43):
this year, Judge Lyman imposed what's known as the Empire
state rule on both parties, meaning neither side can say
anything in the press that could influence a potential jury.
This came after both camps had been making public statements
about the case, a practice that might make for great
gossip but terrible jurisprudence. And despite all this legal drama,
(11:04):
let's not forget that at the heart of this is
a film that was supposed to be Baldoni's passion project.
In a fascinating twist, Baldoni's lawyer recently claimed on a
podcast that his client wasn't happy about anything that would
be negative about Blake, about the movie, about him, or anything.
This wasn't just about him or just about her. This
(11:25):
was about the project. They were working on together. According
to Friedman, Baldoni was devastated when It Ends with Us
faced negative attention upon its release in August twenty twenty four,
saying the last thing he wanted to see was anything
online that would somehow criticize the movie. This claim seems
to directly contradict Lively's allegation that Baldoni orchestrated negative press
(11:47):
against her. Freedman addressed this discrepancy by suggesting that text
messages between Baldoni's publicists and Crisis managers that were included
in Lively's complaint had emojis removed that would have made
it clear they're joking around about articles that were organically
published upon the film's release. In fact, the publicists are
saying we had nothing to do with this whatsoever. Friedman claimed,
(12:12):
It's the classic you're taking it out of context defense,
and without seeing the original texts, it's impossible for us
to know who's telling the truth. Another interesting subplot in
this saga is the creation of a website by Baldoni's
team to publish his allegations against Lively. When asked about
this unusual move, Friedman explained that Baldoni took this step
(12:33):
to fight back against the narrative Lively had allegedly promoted
in the New York Times story. The minute the New
York Times story came out, Justin was done for all
intents and purposes, the attorney said. The court of public
opinion was against him. There was no side that he
had in this, There were no facts that were on
his side. It was really important to come out with real,
(12:55):
true facts. Friedman also claimed the website simply made accessing
publicly available court documents easier for those seeking the truth
about the matter. The website is actually a culmination of
public pleadings that are publicly accessible and had been filed,
and they are easily accessible, he said. It's a place
(13:16):
where you can find things. While technically true, the creation
of such a website is an unusual tactic in legal battles,
suggesting just how much both sides are concerned about public perception.
As if this soap opera needed more drama, Lively recently
updated her suit to include a defamation claim, while also
alleging that she wasn't the only one Baldoni made uncomfortable
(13:37):
on the set of It Ends with Us. Her legal
team has claimed that two unnamed female co stars who
spoke up about Baldoni's alleged behavior will testify, potentially adding
more voices to the chorus of accusations against the actor director. Meanwhile,
the trial date is set for March ninth, twenty twenty six,
which means we have over a year of legal maneuvering,
(14:00):
public posturing, and behind the scenes drama to look forward to.
The length of time between now and the trials suggests
just how complex this case has become, with multiple parties,
multiple lawsuits, and multiple allegations all intertwining in a legal
web that would make even the most seasoned entertainment lawyers
reach for the aspirin. One of the most telling quotes
(14:20):
from this entire saga came from Baldoni's lawyer, who said,
the reality is this is not a circus when you
go through an experience like this, I've represented a lot
of people in the worst moments of their career, the
worst moments of their life. Justin has been destroyed by this.
While the statement was clearly designed to garner sympathy for Baldoni,
(14:40):
it inadvertently highlights the very real human cost of these
high profile legal battles Behind the headlines. Court filings and
pr statements are real people whose lives and careers hang
in the balance. There's also an element of this case
that speaks to broader issues in Hollywood and society at large.
Me too movement has encouraged individuals to speak out about misconduct,
(15:04):
but has also made accusations of sexual harassment and misconduct
particularly potent. When such accusations fly in high profile cases
like this, the stakes are enormous, not just for the
individuals involved, but for how we as a society handle
such allegations going forward. The involvement of Ryan Reynolds adds
another layer of intrigue to this already complicated case. Baldoni's
(15:27):
lawsuit against Reynolds centers partly on the claim that Reynolds
privately called him a predator. Reynolds's legal team argued in
their motion to dismiss that this wouldn't constitute defamation unless
Baldoni can prove Reynolds didn't believe the statement to be true.
The complaint doesn't allege that, and just the opposite. The
allegations in the complaints suggest that mister Reynolds genuinely believes
(15:49):
mister Baldoni is a predator. Reynolds's lawyer stated mister Reynolds's
wife has accused mister Baldoni privately and in multiple complaints
of sexual harassment and retaliation. Reynolds's legal team further argued
that he has a First Amendment right to express his
opinion of mister Baldoni, which should be comforting to a
(16:11):
group of people who have repeatedly called miss Lively and
mister Reynolds's bullies and other names over the past year.
It's the legal equivalent of saying, if you can dish it,
you should be able to take it, and it suggests
that this battle isn't just about the facts of what
happened on set, but about the right to express opinions
about those events. Adding another bizarre twist to this saga,
(16:33):
Baldoni's lawsuit against the New York Times centers on their
December twenty first article titled we can Bury Anyone, a
quote allegedly taken from correspondence between Baldoni's crisis PR team.
The timing of this article is a point of contention,
with Baldoni's side claiming the NYT had Lively's California Civil
Rights Department complaint long before it was filed with the
(16:56):
Golden State government, while the paper's article was published hours
after Tea broke the story of Lively's lawsuit. In their
response to The Times attempt to be dismissed from the case,
Baldoni's team accused the paper of going past merely reporting
on plaintiff Blake Lively's California Civil Rights Department complaint and
actively vouched for the veracity of its false narrative. This
(17:18):
suggests that Baldoni's issue isn't just that The Times reported
on Lively's allegations, but that they presented them as credible,
a fascinating argument that gets at the heart of journalistic
responsibility when covering ongoing legal disputes. As this case continues
to unfold, it's becoming increasingly clear that what happened between
Lively and Baldoni during and after the production of It
(17:40):
ends with Us may never be fully known to the public.
The protective order granted by Judge Lyman ensures that some
of the most sensitive information will remain confidential, seen only
by the attorneys involved. While this is probably best for
the individuals involved, it leaves those of us watching from
the sidelines to piece together the truth from co filings,
(18:01):
carefully crafted PR statements, and the occasional unguarded comment in
interviews or podcast appearances. What makes this case particularly challenging
to unravel is that both sides are accusing the other
of essentially the same thing, orchestrating a campaign to damage
their reputation. Lively claims Baldoni and his team engaged in
(18:21):
a sophisticated smear campaign against her, while Baldoni accuses Lively
and Reynolds of attempting to destroy his career through false
accusations of misconduct. Both sides claim to have evidence to
support their allegations, both sides claim the other is lying,
and both sides seem absolutely convinced of their own righteousness.
(18:42):
This case also highlights the increasing role of social media
and digital communications in modern legal battles. The subpoenas to
sell carriers like AT and T, T Mobile, and Verizon
suggest that text messages and other digital communications will play
a crucial role in either proving or disproving the alleged
smear campaign. In an era where our digital footprints are
(19:05):
extensive and often permanent, the evidence in cases like this
is no longer limited to what witnesses saw or heard
in person, but extends to what was typed, texted or
emailed behind closed doors. The involvement of high powered attorneys
on both sides suggest just how seriously everyone is taking
this case. Lively is represented by Michael Gottlieb, while Baldoni
(19:28):
has enlisted Brian Friedman, both heavy hitters in the entertainment
legal world. These aren't lawyers who take on cases they
don't think they can win, which suggests both sides believe
they have strong arguments and evidence to support their claims.
Despite the serious nature of the allegations, the case hasn't
been without its lighter moments, at least for those of
(19:49):
us watching from the sidelines. At the Director's Guild of
America Awards in February, host Judd Apatow couldn't resist taking
a jab at the situation, calling it ends with thus
a terrible movie and joking that usually to make that
much money, you have to sue Blake Lively. Similarly, at
the Critics' Choice Awards, comedian Chelsea Handler made jokes about
(20:12):
the feud, showing that even in Hollywood, sometimes the only
way to process drama is through humor. Meanwhile, Lively continues
to maintain her public persona recently attending the south By
Southwest Festival premiere of Another Simple Favor in Austin, Texas.
She greeted fans and expressed excitement about reprising her role
(20:33):
as Emily Nelson in the sequel to the twenty eighteen
comedy Mystery. But even this seemingly ordinary promotional appearance wasn't
without drama. A protester briefly appeared on the red carpet
holding a sign that read justice for Justin Baldoni, showing
how this legal battle has spilled over into every aspect
of the star's public lives. As the case progresses, one
(20:56):
of the most interesting elements to watch will be how
it affects the legace of It Ends with Us as
a film. The movie, based on Colleen Hoover's best selling
novel about domestic abuse, was intended to shed light on
serious issues and potentially help those in abusive relationships. Instead,
it's now forever linked to this ugly legal battle between
(21:17):
its stars, potentially overshadowing its important message. It's a reminder
that even projects with the best intentions can become complicated
by the very human dramas of those involved in creating them.
For Baldoni, who has built much of his public persona
around being an ally to women and a champion of
female empowerment. He famously gave a Ted talk titled Why
(21:39):
I'm Done trying to Bemon Enough. These allegations are particularly
damaging his involvement with the feminist collective man Enough, and
his reputation as a thoughtful, conscientious male voice in Hollywood
makes accusations of sexual harassment and retaliation all the more
jarring for his fans and supporters. Or Lively, This battle
(22:01):
comes at a time when she was poised to further
cement her status as one of Hollywood's most bankable female
stars with successful films like a Simple Favor and it
Ends with Us under her belt. Along with ventures outside
of acting like her Betty Buzz mixer line, Lively was
expanding her empire. Now she finds herself embroiled in a
legal battle that threatens to detract from these accomplishments and
(22:23):
potentially impact future opportunities. It's worth noting that regardless of
who ultimately prevails in court, both Lively and Baldoni have
already suffered reputational damage from this very public feud in Hollywood,
where images everything, and relationships are currency. The fallout from
such a bitter dispute can linger long after the legal
(22:44):
proceedings conclude. The entertainment industry has a long memory, and
the shadows cast by this case may follow both stars
for years to come. As we continue to watch this
legal drama unfold, it's important to remember that behind the
salacious headlines and dramas at court filings are real people
with real careers, families, and futures at stake. While it's
(23:07):
easy to get caught up in the soap opera elements
of the case, the allegations at its center sexual harassment, retaliation, defamation,
are serious matters with potentially life altering consequences for those involved.
For now, all we can do is wait as the
legal process grinds forward toward that distant twenty twenty six
trial date. Will new evidence emerge that definitively proves one
(23:30):
side right, Will the parties eventually reach a settlement despite
current protestations to the contrary, Or will this case indeed
go all the way to trial, forcing a jury to
decide who's telling the truth about what happened on the
set of It ends with us. Whatever happens you can
bet your bottom dollar that I Vivian Steel, will be
right here bringing you every twist, turn and jaw dropping
(23:54):
development as it happens. The road to March twenty twenty
six is long, my gossip loving friends, and if the
past few months are any indication, it's going to be
paved with dramatic court filings, explosive allegations, and enough Hollywood
intrigue to fill a dozen seasons of your favorite legal drama.
So stay tuned, stay caffeinated, and stay scandalous, because this
(24:17):
saga is far from over. Well that's all the tea
I've got for you today, my gorgeous gossip getters. Thanks
for listening, and please subscribe to catch all the latest
updates on this saga and more Hollywood drama. This has
been brought to you by Quiet Please Podcast Networks. For
more content like this, please go to Quiet Please dot AI.
(24:38):
Until next time, This is Vivian Steele signing off. Remember,
in Hollywood, the drama never ends, It just gets more expensive.
Hey there, gorgeous gossip getters, it's your girl, Vivian Steels,
sliding into your ears with some piping hot Hollywood tea
that's been brewing to absolute perfection. Welcome to another episode
of Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni, where we dissect the drama,
unpack the tea, and serve it to you straight. No
chaser needed. Today, we're diving deep into the legal battle
(00:21):
that's got Tinseltown talking, Hollywood lawyer's billing, and social media
absolutely melting down. So grab your notepad because class is
in session and Professor Vivian is about to walk you
through this masterclass in celebrity chaos. Darlings. If you thought
the Drama And It Ends with Us was intense, let
me tell you the real life saga between its stars
(00:42):
makes the movie look like a Disney Afternoon special. We're
talking lawsuits, counter lawsuits, protective orders, and ego battles that
would make even the real housewives say, maybe tone it
down a notch. This feud has officially reached nuclear levels,
with both sides digging their designer heels in for what's
shaping up to be the celebrity legal battle of the decade.
(01:05):
So let's rewind the tape of Smidge for those of
you who might have been living under a rock or
worse without Wi Fi. Back in December twenty twenty four,
Blake Lively dropped a bombshell that sent shockwaves through Hollywood
when she filed a sexual harassment complaint against her. It
ends with US co star and director Justin Baldoni. We're
(01:26):
not talking about a little on set tension here, folks.
Lively accused Baldoni of misconduct during production and wait for it,
orchestrating a calculated smear campaign designed to absolutely demolish her reputation.
Scandalous doesn't even begin to cover it. Baldoni, naturally, wasn't
about to take these allegations lying down. By January, he
(01:49):
fired back with a four hundred million dollar lawsuit against Lively,
her husband Ryan Reynolds, Yes, Deadpool himself got dragged into
this mess, and their publicist, Les Sloan. The lawsuit threw
around some pretty hefty accusations, including extortion and defamation. Four
hundred million dollars. People, that's not just lawsuit money, that's
(02:13):
I want to financially eviscerate you money now. In the
most recent chapter of this saga, Lively has filed a
motion to dismiss Baldoni's lawsuit entirely, calling it a profound
abuse of the legal process. She's not just filing any
old motion, Darlings, She's invoking a California law specifically designed
(02:33):
to protect people who speak out about sexual harassment or retaliation.
It's like she's saying, not only are you wrong, honey,
but the entire legal system is on my side. That
is what we in the business call a power move.
And Lively isn't fighting this battle alone. Her husband, Ryan Reynolds, who,
let's be honest, is probably stress eating Chimichanga's in his
(02:55):
Deadpool costume at this point, also filed his own motion
to dismiss Baldonie's claims against him. Reynolds's legal team essentially
argued that calling someone a predator in private isn't defamation
if you genuinely believe it to be true, the legal
equivalent of I said what I said, and I meant
it now. Baldoni's attorney, Brian Friedman, who is rapidly becoming
(03:20):
a character in this drama worthy of his own spinoff,
fired back at these dismissal attempts with the kind of
dramatic flare that makes me wonder if he practices his
statements in front of a mirror. First, he called Lively's
motion one of the most abhorrent examples of abusing our
legal system, which coming from a lawyer is like a
chef calling someone else's cooking poison the drama, darlings the drama.
(03:47):
Freedman didn't stop there. In a recent podcast appearance that
had the legal and entertainment worlds absolutely gagging, he claimed
that Baldoni has been destroyed by Lively's accusations. According to
this legal eagle, the only way for Baldoni to salvage
his reputation is to prove his innocence in court. In
this day and age, the only way that you can
(04:08):
truly get back is to prove your innocence, and that's
what we're actively working to do, Friedman said, essentially confirming
what many of us suspected. A settlement before the scheduled
twenty twenty six trial is about as likely as me
turning down front row tickets to Fashion Week. But wait,
there's more. In what must feel like a small victory
(04:29):
in this massive war, Lively recently scored a significant win
when Judge Lewis Lyman granted her request for a protective order.
This means certain discoveries in the case, particularly highly personal
and intimate information about third parties, will be for attorney's
eyes only. Translation, all the juicy, potentially career damaging details
(04:52):
that lawyers uncover won't be accessible to Lively Baldoni or sadly,
for us gossip connoisseur, he's the public. The judge was
concerned about the risk of disclosure and the potential spread
of gossip and innuendo. M excuse me, your honor, but
spreading gossip and innuendo is literally my job description. Baldoni's
(05:16):
legal team, while not objecting to keeping certain material away
from the press in public smart Move, argued that not
being able to share findings with their clients would make
the case difficult to litigate. I mean, imagine trying to
fight a lawsuit where you can't even see half the evidence.
It's like playing poker with a blindfold. Challenging, to say
(05:36):
the least. The timing of all this couldn't be more
dramatic if it had been scripted by Shonda Rhimes herself.
Lively has been making a carefully orchestrated return to the
public eye, appearing at the SNL fifty anniversary special in
February and strutting down the red carpet at SXSW for
the premiere of another Simple Favor earlier this month. It's
(05:58):
the classic celebrity move. While your personal life might be
erupting in flames, your professional persona remains unfhazed, unbothered, and
unnaturally photogenic. Now, let's talk about a fascinating subplot in
this Hollywood saga, Baldoni's beef with The New York Times. Yes,
you heard that right. Our director actor is also waging
(06:21):
war against one of the most powerful newspapers in the world.
Baldoni is fighting tooth and nail to keep The Times
included in his legal action, responding to their attempt to
be dropped from the case with a memorandum arguing that
this dispute should be resolved by a jury at trial.
The Times had previously secured a win when Judge Lyman
put a stay on any further discovery into their files
(06:44):
while their dismissal motion works through the courts. Baldoni's team
didn't mince words in their opposition to the NYT's dismissal request,
calling the paper a pietistic bastion of the media establishment
that has long presumed itself beyond accountability. Darlings, I haven't
heard that kind of literary shade since my college professor
(07:04):
critiqued my thesis on fashion journalism. The document went on
to accuse The Times of going past merely reporting on
plaintiff Blake Lively's California Civil Rights Department complaint and actively
vouched for the veracity of its false narrative. In other words,
Baldoni's team is accusing the paper of not just reporting
(07:25):
the news but taking sides juicy. The Times, naturally, wasn't
about to let that slide, with Communications SVP Danielle rhodes
Haw telling Deadline that the flaws in the Baldoni wayfarer
case were made clear last week in their own legal
filing when they asked the court for yet another opportunity
to amend their complaint to try to make it legally sufficient.
(07:49):
Oh the sass, the shade. The Times essentially said, your
lawsuit is so poorly constructed you keep having to fix it,
so maybe focus on that instead of coming for I
live for this level of professional pettiness. Now you might
be wondering how we got here. How did the stars
of a film adaptation of a popular book about toxic
(08:11):
relationships end up in such a toxic real life situation.
The allegations at the center of this firestorm are serious
and multifaceted. Lively's complaint alleges that Baldoni inserted unscripted and
unwelcome kisses during filming, frequently discussed his struggles with pornography,
addiction and detailed sexual experiences, and even entered her trailer
(08:32):
without permission while she was nursing her baby. These are
heavy accusations that go far beyond the typical creative differences
we often hear about on film sets. One particularly explosive
element of Lively's complaint is the allegation of a coordinated
smear campaign against her. She claims Baldoni and his team
engaged in astroturfing, essentially creating fake grassroots support, or, in
(08:56):
this case, manufactured negative publicity to destroy her reputation after
she spoke up about misconduct on set. Lively's legal filing
described this as a sophisticated press and digital plan in
retaliation for mis Lively exercising her legally protected right to
speak up about their misconduct on the set. In the
(09:17):
era of social media and rapid fire news cycles, reputation
is currency, and Lively is essentially accusing Baldoni of counterfeiting.
The plot thickened even further when Lively and Reynolds recently
sent out subpoenas to major cell carriers like AT and T,
T Mobile, and Verizon, as well as to Jed Wallace,
(09:37):
who Lively alleges was a key player in the smear
campaign against her. Her attorneys made it clear their hunting
for receipts, stating that miss Lively has initiated discovery that
will expose the people, tactics, and methods that have worked
to destroy and bury her reputation and family over the
past year. Talk about bringing out the big guns. This
(09:59):
move suggests Lively's team believes there's concrete evidence of the
alleged smear campaign lurking in text messages and other communications.
And speaking of Jed Wallace, who describes himself as a
human crisis navigator, he's now launched his own seven million
dollar defamation suit against Lively. Wallace's lawyer admitted this action
as in response to Wallace's likely addition to Lively's ongoing
(10:21):
legal battles. It's like the legal equivalent of you can't
fire me, I quit, or in this case, you can't
sue me, I'll sue you first. What makes this case
particularly fascinating from a legal perspective is how both sides
are trying to control the narrative, not just in the
court of public opinion, but in the actual courtroom. Earlier
(10:43):
this year, Judge Lyman imposed what's known as the Empire
state rule on both parties, meaning neither side can say
anything in the press that could influence a potential jury.
This came after both camps had been making public statements
about the case, a practice that might make for great
gossip but terrible jurisprudence. And despite all this legal drama,
(11:04):
let's not forget that at the heart of this is
a film that was supposed to be Baldoni's passion project.
In a fascinating twist, Baldoni's lawyer recently claimed on a
podcast that his client wasn't happy about anything that would
be negative about Blake, about the movie, about him, or anything.
This wasn't just about him or just about her. This
(11:25):
was about the project. They were working on together. According
to Friedman, Baldoni was devastated when It Ends with Us
faced negative attention upon its release in August twenty twenty four,
saying the last thing he wanted to see was anything
online that would somehow criticize the movie. This claim seems
to directly contradict Lively's allegation that Baldoni orchestrated negative press
(11:47):
against her. Freedman addressed this discrepancy by suggesting that text
messages between Baldoni's publicists and Crisis managers that were included
in Lively's complaint had emojis removed that would have made
it clear they're joking around about articles that were organically
published upon the film's release. In fact, the publicists are
saying we had nothing to do with this whatsoever. Friedman claimed,
(12:12):
It's the classic you're taking it out of context defense,
and without seeing the original texts, it's impossible for us
to know who's telling the truth. Another interesting subplot in
this saga is the creation of a website by Baldoni's
team to publish his allegations against Lively. When asked about
this unusual move, Friedman explained that Baldoni took this step
(12:33):
to fight back against the narrative Lively had allegedly promoted
in the New York Times story. The minute the New
York Times story came out, Justin was done for all
intents and purposes, the attorney said. The court of public
opinion was against him. There was no side that he
had in this, There were no facts that were on
his side. It was really important to come out with real,
(12:55):
true facts. Friedman also claimed the website simply made accessing
publicly available court documents easier for those seeking the truth
about the matter. The website is actually a culmination of
public pleadings that are publicly accessible and had been filed,
and they are easily accessible, he said. It's a place
(13:16):
where you can find things. While technically true, the creation
of such a website is an unusual tactic in legal battles,
suggesting just how much both sides are concerned about public perception.
As if this soap opera needed more drama, Lively recently
updated her suit to include a defamation claim, while also
alleging that she wasn't the only one Baldoni made uncomfortable
(13:37):
on the set of It Ends with Us. Her legal
team has claimed that two unnamed female co stars who
spoke up about Baldoni's alleged behavior will testify, potentially adding
more voices to the chorus of accusations against the actor director. Meanwhile,
the trial date is set for March ninth, twenty twenty six,
which means we have over a year of legal maneuvering,
(14:00):
public posturing, and behind the scenes drama to look forward to.
The length of time between now and the trials suggests
just how complex this case has become, with multiple parties,
multiple lawsuits, and multiple allegations all intertwining in a legal
web that would make even the most seasoned entertainment lawyers
reach for the aspirin. One of the most telling quotes
(14:20):
from this entire saga came from Baldoni's lawyer, who said,
the reality is this is not a circus when you
go through an experience like this, I've represented a lot
of people in the worst moments of their career, the
worst moments of their life. Justin has been destroyed by this.
While the statement was clearly designed to garner sympathy for Baldoni,
(14:40):
it inadvertently highlights the very real human cost of these
high profile legal battles Behind the headlines. Court filings and
pr statements are real people whose lives and careers hang
in the balance. There's also an element of this case
that speaks to broader issues in Hollywood and society at large.
Me too movement has encouraged individuals to speak out about misconduct,
(15:04):
but has also made accusations of sexual harassment and misconduct
particularly potent. When such accusations fly in high profile cases
like this, the stakes are enormous, not just for the
individuals involved, but for how we as a society handle
such allegations going forward. The involvement of Ryan Reynolds adds
another layer of intrigue to this already complicated case. Baldoni's
(15:27):
lawsuit against Reynolds centers partly on the claim that Reynolds
privately called him a predator. Reynolds's legal team argued in
their motion to dismiss that this wouldn't constitute defamation unless
Baldoni can prove Reynolds didn't believe the statement to be true.
The complaint doesn't allege that, and just the opposite. The
allegations in the complaints suggest that mister Reynolds genuinely believes
(15:49):
mister Baldoni is a predator. Reynolds's lawyer stated mister Reynolds's
wife has accused mister Baldoni privately and in multiple complaints
of sexual harassment and retaliation. Reynolds's legal team further argued
that he has a First Amendment right to express his
opinion of mister Baldoni, which should be comforting to a
(16:11):
group of people who have repeatedly called miss Lively and
mister Reynolds's bullies and other names over the past year.
It's the legal equivalent of saying, if you can dish it,
you should be able to take it, and it suggests
that this battle isn't just about the facts of what
happened on set, but about the right to express opinions
about those events. Adding another bizarre twist to this saga,
(16:33):
Baldoni's lawsuit against the New York Times centers on their
December twenty first article titled we can Bury Anyone, a
quote allegedly taken from correspondence between Baldoni's crisis PR team.
The timing of this article is a point of contention,
with Baldoni's side claiming the NYT had Lively's California Civil
Rights Department complaint long before it was filed with the
(16:56):
Golden State government, while the paper's article was published hours
after Tea broke the story of Lively's lawsuit. In their
response to The Times attempt to be dismissed from the case,
Baldoni's team accused the paper of going past merely reporting
on plaintiff Blake Lively's California Civil Rights Department complaint and
actively vouched for the veracity of its false narrative. This
(17:18):
suggests that Baldoni's issue isn't just that The Times reported
on Lively's allegations, but that they presented them as credible,
a fascinating argument that gets at the heart of journalistic
responsibility when covering ongoing legal disputes. As this case continues
to unfold, it's becoming increasingly clear that what happened between
Lively and Baldoni during and after the production of It
(17:40):
ends with Us may never be fully known to the public.
The protective order granted by Judge Lyman ensures that some
of the most sensitive information will remain confidential, seen only
by the attorneys involved. While this is probably best for
the individuals involved, it leaves those of us watching from
the sidelines to piece together the truth from co filings,
(18:01):
carefully crafted PR statements, and the occasional unguarded comment in
interviews or podcast appearances. What makes this case particularly challenging
to unravel is that both sides are accusing the other
of essentially the same thing, orchestrating a campaign to damage
their reputation. Lively claims Baldoni and his team engaged in
(18:21):
a sophisticated smear campaign against her, while Baldoni accuses Lively
and Reynolds of attempting to destroy his career through false
accusations of misconduct. Both sides claim to have evidence to
support their allegations, both sides claim the other is lying,
and both sides seem absolutely convinced of their own righteousness.
(18:42):
This case also highlights the increasing role of social media
and digital communications in modern legal battles. The subpoenas to
sell carriers like AT and T, T Mobile, and Verizon
suggest that text messages and other digital communications will play
a crucial role in either proving or disproving the alleged
smear campaign. In an era where our digital footprints are
(19:05):
extensive and often permanent, the evidence in cases like this
is no longer limited to what witnesses saw or heard
in person, but extends to what was typed, texted or
emailed behind closed doors. The involvement of high powered attorneys
on both sides suggest just how seriously everyone is taking
this case. Lively is represented by Michael Gottlieb, while Baldoni
(19:28):
has enlisted Brian Friedman, both heavy hitters in the entertainment
legal world. These aren't lawyers who take on cases they
don't think they can win, which suggests both sides believe
they have strong arguments and evidence to support their claims.
Despite the serious nature of the allegations, the case hasn't
been without its lighter moments, at least for those of
(19:49):
us watching from the sidelines. At the Director's Guild of
America Awards in February, host Judd Apatow couldn't resist taking
a jab at the situation, calling it ends with thus
a terrible movie and joking that usually to make that
much money, you have to sue Blake Lively. Similarly, at
the Critics' Choice Awards, comedian Chelsea Handler made jokes about
(20:12):
the feud, showing that even in Hollywood, sometimes the only
way to process drama is through humor. Meanwhile, Lively continues
to maintain her public persona recently attending the south By
Southwest Festival premiere of Another Simple Favor in Austin, Texas.
She greeted fans and expressed excitement about reprising her role
(20:33):
as Emily Nelson in the sequel to the twenty eighteen
comedy Mystery. But even this seemingly ordinary promotional appearance wasn't
without drama. A protester briefly appeared on the red carpet
holding a sign that read justice for Justin Baldoni, showing
how this legal battle has spilled over into every aspect
of the star's public lives. As the case progresses, one
(20:56):
of the most interesting elements to watch will be how
it affects the legace of It Ends with Us as
a film. The movie, based on Colleen Hoover's best selling
novel about domestic abuse, was intended to shed light on
serious issues and potentially help those in abusive relationships. Instead,
it's now forever linked to this ugly legal battle between
(21:17):
its stars, potentially overshadowing its important message. It's a reminder
that even projects with the best intentions can become complicated
by the very human dramas of those involved in creating them.
For Baldoni, who has built much of his public persona
around being an ally to women and a champion of
female empowerment. He famously gave a Ted talk titled Why
(21:39):
I'm Done trying to Bemon Enough. These allegations are particularly
damaging his involvement with the feminist collective man Enough, and
his reputation as a thoughtful, conscientious male voice in Hollywood
makes accusations of sexual harassment and retaliation all the more
jarring for his fans and supporters. Or Lively, This battle
(22:01):
comes at a time when she was poised to further
cement her status as one of Hollywood's most bankable female
stars with successful films like a Simple Favor and it
Ends with Us under her belt. Along with ventures outside
of acting like her Betty Buzz mixer line, Lively was
expanding her empire. Now she finds herself embroiled in a
legal battle that threatens to detract from these accomplishments and
(22:23):
potentially impact future opportunities. It's worth noting that regardless of
who ultimately prevails in court, both Lively and Baldoni have
already suffered reputational damage from this very public feud in Hollywood,
where images everything, and relationships are currency. The fallout from
such a bitter dispute can linger long after the legal
(22:44):
proceedings conclude. The entertainment industry has a long memory, and
the shadows cast by this case may follow both stars
for years to come. As we continue to watch this
legal drama unfold, it's important to remember that behind the
salacious headlines and dramas at court filings are real people
with real careers, families, and futures at stake. While it's
(23:07):
easy to get caught up in the soap opera elements
of the case, the allegations at its center sexual harassment, retaliation, defamation,
are serious matters with potentially life altering consequences for those involved.
For now, all we can do is wait as the
legal process grinds forward toward that distant twenty twenty six
trial date. Will new evidence emerge that definitively proves one
(23:30):
side right, Will the parties eventually reach a settlement despite
current protestations to the contrary, Or will this case indeed
go all the way to trial, forcing a jury to
decide who's telling the truth about what happened on the
set of It ends with us. Whatever happens you can
bet your bottom dollar that I Vivian Steel, will be
right here bringing you every twist, turn and jaw dropping
(23:54):
development as it happens. The road to March twenty twenty
six is long, my gossip loving friends, and if the
past few months are any indication, it's going to be
paved with dramatic court filings, explosive allegations, and enough Hollywood
intrigue to fill a dozen seasons of your favorite legal drama.
So stay tuned, stay caffeinated, and stay scandalous, because this
(24:17):
saga is far from over. Well that's all the tea
I've got for you today, my gorgeous gossip getters. Thanks
for listening, and please subscribe to catch all the latest
updates on this saga and more Hollywood drama. This has
been brought to you by Quiet Please Podcast Networks. For
more content like this, please go to Quiet Please dot AI.
(24:38):
Until next time, This is Vivian Steele signing off. Remember,
in Hollywood, the drama never ends, It just gets more expensive.
Popular Podcasts
CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist
It’s 1996 in rural North Carolina, and an oddball crew makes history when they pull off America’s third largest cash heist. But it’s all downhill from there. Join host Johnny Knoxville as he unspools a wild and woolly tale about a group of regular ‘ol folks who risked it all for a chance at a better life. CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist answers the question: what would you do with 17.3 million dollars? The answer includes diamond rings, mansions, velvet Elvis paintings, plus a run for the border, murder-for-hire-plots, and FBI busts.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.