Baldoni pushes back in Lively lawsuit

Actor and filmmaker Justin Baldoni has urged a US federal judge to throw out Blake Lively's sexual harassment and defamation lawsuit, arguing the case centres on damaged reputations rather than legitimate legal violations.

Filing in Manhattan federal court, Baldoni's lawyers said that any "sporadic misunderstandings" or "awkward comments" about Lively's appearance during production of their 2024 film 'It Ends With Us' were promptly addressed once she raised them.

They added that Baldoni was entitled to hire a crisis management firm to defend himself after Lively allegedly began disparaging him publicly. "This is a dispute about Hollywood reputations, not genuine legal wrongs," his legal team said.

The lawyers added that "no reasonable juror could find" Lively's claims amounted to sexual harassment. They argued that any harm to her image resulted from "her own ill-advised public statements and actions."

Lively, who co-starred in and produced the film directed by Baldoni, had accused him and his Wayfarer Studios of creating a hostile work environment and orchestrating a campaign to discredit her. Her lawsuit seeks unspecified damages for alleged harassment, invasion of privacy, and violations of federal and state civil rights laws.

The conflict, which first became public when Lively filed a complaint with California's Civil Rights Department last December, has since drawn widespread attention in Hollywood. It even brushed against pop star Taylor Swift, Lively's close friend, whom Baldoni reportedly sought to question under oath.

US District Judge Lewis Liman, overseeing the case, previously warned both sides to tone down their rhetoric, threatening contempt charges in August if the "intemperate language and personal attacks" continued. A trial is set for March 2026.

In a related decision earlier this year, Judge Liman dismissed Baldoni's $400 million defamation suit against Lively and a separate $250 million claim against a newspaper, ruling that statements made in legal filings were protected and did not constitute defamation.