Court Hearing Unfolds in Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni's Legal Dispute

The initial hearing in the legal saga between Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni showcased contentious exchanges between their lawyers, who argued over claims of sexual harassment and defamation tied to their recent film. As the courtroom tension escalated, both sides reiterated their positions on the unfolding media narratives.

Lawyers representing Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni faced off in court for the first time over allegations of sexual harassment and defamation linked to their film, It Ends With Us. Lively initiated the legal battle in December with a complaint against Baldoni, alleging sexual harassment and a subsequent smear campaign aimed at tarnishing her reputation. In retaliation, Baldoni has denied these claims and countersued Lively on several grounds, including defamation.

During the pretrial conference held at a federal court in Manhattan, the hour-and-a-half-long session saw heated exchanges between the legal teams. Lively's attorney, Michael Gottlieb, accused Baldoni's counsel, Bryan Freedman, of making inflammatory statements in the media that misrepresented Lively's character. Freedman countered by asserting that his client had been unjustly harmed and that Gottlieb's attempt to restrict media commentary amounted to an unlawful gag order.

The jurist overseeing the case, Judge Lewis Liman, expressed concern over the public nature of the legal conflict. He warned that if the case continued to be litigated in the press, the March 2026 trial might need to be expedited to avoid jury bias. Consequently, he announced enforcement of Rule 3.6 by the New York Bar Association to limit public commentary that could potentially impact the trial's outcome.

The proceedings escalated as Baldoni amended his complaint, including a detailed 168-page timeline of events. His legal team even launched an accompanying website that featured the new complaint alongside various multimedia resources. Lively's legal representative confronted the matter of the website in court, voicing questions about its authorship and funding, and highlighting that Baldoni's selectively released film out-takes purportedly disproving Lively’s harassment claims were, in fact, supportive of her allegations.

In the wake of this contentious session, Lively's team hinted at filing an amended complaint that could extend the scope of the case to include additional parties. At present, Baldoni is also engaged in a libel suit against The New York Times, accusing the publication of colluding with Lively in divulging civil rights complaints, which the Times has denied.

To ensure clarity amid this complex legal situation involving multiple high-profile individuals, Judge Liman emphasized the necessity of establishing a protective order as the case progresses. Amidst these developments, Baldoni's attorney sought to expedite the pre-trial timeline. Judge Liman duly agreed, fostering a push for resolution in the evidently complicated court dispute.