Justin Baldoni & his publicists are suing the New York Times for $250 million

Just before Christmas, Blake Lively and her lawyers filed a huge complaint with the California Civil Rights Department, all about Justin Baldoni and his production company. Lively accused Baldoni of sexual harassment on the set of It Ends With Us, and then using a crisis manager for a “social manipulation” campaign against her over the summer. Blake’s team also released a cache of texts and emails from Baldoni’s publicist and crisis manager, asserting that the texts and emails proved the “social manipulation” part of her case. The New York Times published the texts and emails in a bombshell exclusive. Baldoni has been widely criticized by many within the industry, as everyone is now trying to line up behind Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds. We also heard that Baldoni’s fight-back would begin in the New Year. Well, on New Year’s Eve, Baldoni sued the NY Times for what he’s calling a cherry-picked narrative and unethical journalism. Baldoni’s side is that this is all Blake and Ryan setting out to destroy him and his career. What’s interesting is that Baldoni kept his own receipts, and some of his receipts contradict Blake’s narratives, or (at best) make some of Blake’s claims look exaggerated. You can read the exhaustive coverage here at Variety. Some highlights:

Baldoni kept receipts: On June 2, 2023, Blake Lively began a text exchange with her “It Ends With Us” director and co-star Justin Baldoni that blamed her assistant for not getting her an updated batch of script pages. “She didn’t realize they were new,” Lively wrote. “New pages can always be sent to me as well please.” The actress signed the missive with an “X” — the universal symbol for a kiss. Lively followed up with another text shortly thereafter. “I’m just pumping in my trailer if you wanna work out our lines.” Baldoni responded: “Copy. Eating with crew and will head that way.” Eighteen months later, that interaction was depicted in a New York Times bombshell report in a far more sinister light. The Times wrote: “[Baldoni] repeatedly entered her makeup trailer uninvited while she was undressed, including when she was breastfeeding.”

Baldoni’s lawsuit: That discrepancy is one of many highlighted in a scathing $250 million lawsuit filed Tuesday afternoon by Baldoni against the Times in Los Angeles Superior Court. Baldoni is among a group of 10 plaintiffs that also includes publicists Melissa Nathan and Jennifer Abel who are suing the newspaper for libel and false light invasion of privacy over the Dec. 21 article titled “‘We Can Bury Anyone’: Inside a Hollywood Smear Machine.” The parties, which also include “It Ends With Us” producers Jamey Heath and Steve Sarowitz, claim that the Times relied on “‘cherry-picked’ and altered communications stripped of necessary context and deliberately spliced to mislead.” The 87-page complaint, which also accuses the Times of promissory fraud and breach of implied-in-fact contract, offers a rebuttal of the narrative set forth in the 4,000-word article that has rocked Hollywood.

What was Blake Lively’s motive? According to the lawsuit, it was Lively who embarked on a “strategic and manipulative” smear campaign of her own and used false “sexual harassment allegations to assert unilateral control over every aspect of the production.” And according to the suit, Lively’s husband, actor Ryan Reynolds, allegedly berated Baldoni in an aggressive manner during a heated meeting at their Tribeca penthouse in New York, “accusing him of ‘fat shaming’” his wife. The suit claims that the A-list actor also pressured Baldoni’s agency, WME, to drop the director during the “Deadpool and Wolverine” premiere in July, well before Baldoni enlisted crisis PR. A WME rep denies that there was any pressure from Reynolds or Lively to drop Baldoni as a client.

Baldoni’s lawyer: Attorney Bryan Freedman, who filed the lawsuit on behalf of the plaintiffs, tells Variety that the Times “cowered to the wants and whims of two powerful ‘untouchable’ Hollywood elites, disregarding journalistic practices and ethics once befitting of the revered publication by using doctored and manipulated texts and intentionally omitting texts which dispute their chosen PR narrative.”

Blake’s publicist planted stories too: “The Times story relied almost entirely on Lively’s unverified and self-serving narrative, lifting it nearly verbatim while disregarding an abundance of evidence that contradicted her claims and exposed her true motives,” the suit says. The plaintiffs also contend that the Times reporters overlooked text messages indicating that Lively’s camp may have been waging its own PR war against Baldoni preemptively. “The [Times] article also deliberately ignores that Lively’s publicist, Leslie Sloane (“Sloane”), of Vision PR, once backed by Harvey Weinstein, seeded stories critical of Baldoni, including that Baldoni was a sexual predator, ahead of the film’s release.” The complaint also states that Nathan’s firm “was made aware of Sloane planting an unfavorable, false and defamatory story about Baldoni’s Baháʼí faith to Page Six” and also planted “a false story alleging that there were ‘multiple’ HR complaints during production.”

The story of Heath showing Blake a video of his naked wife. “The Times compounded its journalistic failures by uncritically advancing Lively’s unsubstantiated claims of sexual harassment against Heath and Baldoni. … [with the] CRD complaint even labeling [that] footage as ‘pornography.’ This claim is patently absurd,” the lawsuit says. “The video in question was a (non-pornographic) recording of Heath’s wife during a home birth — a deeply personal one with no sexual overtone. To distort this benign event into an act of sexual misconduct is outrageous and emblematic of the lengths to which Lively and her collaborators are willing to go to defame plaintiffs.” The suit adds that the video in question was shown to Lively as part of a creative discussion regarding a birthing scene in “It Ends With Us.”

The intimacy coordinator situation: The Times article states that before shooting on “It Ends With Us” began in 2023, Lively objected to sex scenes Baldoni “wanted to add that she considered gratuitous.” In response, Baldoni’s Wayfarer Studios “agreed to provide a full-time intimacy coordinator.” But today’s lawsuit offers an alternate version of events. In one text message sent by Lively before production included in the suit, she indicates that she is in no hurry to meet with the film’s intimacy coordinator. “I feel good. I can meet her when we start 🙂 thank you though!” Baldoni’s lawsuit also references “notes from the intimacy coordinator [that] included a suggestion that perhaps ‘Ryle’ [played by Baldoni] chooses not to orgasm after he satisfied Lily [played by Lively].” According to the complaint, “Lively personalizes this and states, ‘I’d be mortified if that happened to me,’ to which Baldoni, following Lively’s lead in what seemed like an attempt to connect and develop their characters, says, “I’m not sure about you but those have been some of the most beautiful moments with [my wife] and I.”

Ryan Reynolds berated Baldoni: As for the meeting at Lively and Reynolds’ penthouse apartment in Tribeca, everyone was “in shock” by Reynolds’ outburst, the lawsuit claims. According to the lawsuit, one of the film’s producers who was present said that “in his 40-year career he had never seen anyone speak to someone like that in a meeting, [while] the Sony representative mentioned that she would often think of that meeting and her one regret is that she didn’t stop Reynolds’ berating of Baldoni.”

[From Variety]

In one part of Baldoni’s filing, his lawyers point out that Blake filed her complaint with the California Civil Rights Department because the discovery process is a lot different, as is answering questions under oath. Baldoni’s argument being, Blake didn’t have the balls to sue him directly because her case would have fallen apart under scrutiny. As soon as Baldoni sued the Times, Lively filed a federal complaint against Baldoni, Wayfarer Studios and everyone else. So we’re at the point where only one of these people will have a career once the dust settles, right? The courts will have to sort through a lot of material, so I’m going to wait-and-see on some of this stuff. One thing I will say is that I absolutely believe that Ryan Reynolds raged out on Baldoni, and I think that might be a crucial piece of the larger story.

Photos courtesy of Backgrid, Cover Images.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

125 Responses to “Justin Baldoni & his publicists are suing the New York Times for $250 million”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Amy T says:

    Messy. And likely to get messier. I can’t imagine the Times not reaching out to Baldoni’s team for a reaction to the initial piece – so there are some big questions here.

    • Izzy says:

      Apparently the Times reached out to them at night just before the holidays when everyone was already shutting down for a break, gave them 14 hours to respond, and went ahead and published before that deadline.

      If they were going to seek comment, they knew (or should have known) that 9 pm right before Christmas was likely going to see people logged off from email and out of office.

      • Amy T says:

        Thanks for this. Still lots of questions, but at least that provides some kind of context.

      • Zan Bee says:

        Well stated Izzy. Also, from what I’ve read today, not only did the New York Times give them only 14 hours to respond to a 9:00 PM Christmas-season email, but the NYT did not even adhere to this timeline. Rather, they published Blake’s version 2 hours early, at 9:00 AM the next day, rather than the presumed 11:00 AM.

        It appears that the NYT jumped the gun to make sure that they were the first to publish the story, and did not wait for a response from Justin’s team.

      • MaisiesMom says:

        Pretty wild considering that the Times waited until after the 2016 election to publish the stories about Trump’s ties to Russia. They sat on that for at least weeks but rushed to get this out?

      • TigerMcQueen says:

        I’m waiting for all the facts to come out about this. JB’s legal team is spinning to put him in the best light (as they should), but as someone with a media and PR background, I have thoughts.

        First, 14 hours to respond is very generous (as a PR rep, I often have a half workday, tops, to respond.). Second, a competent PR rep would not be “shutting down” for the break, they’d monitor their email and voicemail (and they likely were very well aware a story was in the pipeline). There’s nothing nefarious about the NYT’s timing here.

      • TigerMcQueen says:

        Adding one thing: there’s nothing nefarious except for the story being published before the deadline. And I wouldn’t call that nefarious. If JB’s team told the reporter they weren’t going to talk, that negates the deadline. I’ve also been burnt on both sides (as a reporter waiting on a comment, as a PR rep trying to put together a comment) when an editor decided it was time to break the story.

      • Smart&Messy says:

        TigerMcQueen, I’m not in PR but these people supposedly represent very high-profile people on a global stage. I can’t imagine they would log out completely for days. I manage a relatively small business compared to them but I deal in the dairy industry where stuff has to be going 24/7. I put my phone away during family moments, but keep checking on things every few hours.

    • manda says:

      Yes, what Izzy said. Them not even keeping true to the deadline is sort of SHOCKING to me, just because I had a lot of respect for megan twohey from the weinstein article (and I saw the movie, where they made a huge effort to fact check). But people have been ragging on the times a lot this year, I guess they were right.

      I am interested in this story but cannot keep up with the voluminous articles about it!

      • NotMika says:

        While I don’t love the Times, I don’t see this lawsuit being successful. As soon as you set a precedent for “cherry picking facts”, a lot of publications and TV stations become guilty. Also my experience in journalism is that while you must reach out to the other party for comment, you don’t need to do it in a way that is convenient for them and their PR team.

    • HillaryIsAlwaysRight says:

      As expected, Baldoni’s attorney is using the MAGA playbook of attacking real, fact-checked journalism to discredit the story and the accuser. Just because the Times piece didn’t include a response from Baldoni’s team, doesn’t mean there is a problem with the reporting, or the veracity of what was printed. Also. this was likely a quickly developing story, which also required weeks of research and fact-checking, and therefore put them right up against Christmas. The Times likely would not / could not reach out to Baldoni’s team until that vetting process was done, as a matter of professional practice.

    • GrnieWnie says:

      Yeah here’s one weird thing: breastfeeding and pumping are not the same. So…this refers to the same experience? I would expect the former to refer to her having her infant on set, not pumping (which can be done under clothing).

      • Smart&Messy says:

        Yess, it sounds like they are talking about two different incidents. Or is Baldoni trying to say that Blake once said it was ok to see her while she was pumping, so he took it as permission for breastfeeding too?

        As for Blake, when you are not comfortable around a person, like she claims she wasn’t around Baldoni and his team, why invite them inside when you are pumping? Couldn’t they wait to rehearse for 15 mins when she is done with something so distracting?? OR is the text taken out of context and Blake was being sarcastic like “yeah sure, barge in on me when I’m pumping to go over some lines if you can’t wait 15 effing minutes”. I don’t even know.

  2. ThatGirlThere says:

    lol…discovery should be fun for both.

    • Formal Gumby says:

      @ThatGirlThere: Agreed. There is a LOT to dig through with this.

      Also just want to point out that her pumping breastmilk in her trailer isn’t inappropriate at all; there are pumps that you can buy that’ll have the person completely covered up. Also, blankets exist. Also, it was one invitation, and consent was given.

  3. Anonymous says:

    I’ll be honest that with all these filings and counter filings I’m cloudy on the timeline. If Ryan Reynolds be rated him after some of these sexual harassment events had occurred then yes I’m sure he was quite angry with Justin Baldoni even if no one else in the room knew why as of yet.

  4. Annie says:

    I’m going to assume Ryan believed his wife and acted accordingly. Many men would have started swinging (not saying it’s right)
    Regardless of what happened, this Justin guy is so sketchy.

    • Chica says:

      BL used the WW workplace playbook to co-opt JB directorship of the movie…Have seen this many times. JB was in a less powerful position and tried to appease her and it blew up in his face. BL executive producer role did not allow her and authority per the contract.BL unchecked behavior was on display during the press run and commented on by netizens who had to real interest in movie or outcome. My guess is RR used his power to try and get rid of JB. NYT screwed up- Jennifer ABEL said in her post that they contacted her the night before the story ran. While her employer gave up the texts, I don’t think they gave up all.

      • Tiffany says:

        @Chica you get it

      • Jen says:

        Who or what is WW?

      • HillaryIsAlwaysRight says:

        Lively was just a paid actor on the project. Baldoni was the director, producer via Wayfarer (his production company financed by a billionaire), holder of the book rights, and the one with his own meetings and screenings with Sony executives – the distributors. Baldoni was the one with the power on this film.

    • Mel says:

      I learned my lesson and I am waiting for the full story. I imagine the truth is somewhere in the middle of their two stories, but when I read the part about ryan berating Justin for the supposed fat shaming, in their own home, is like, why? If someone sexually harassed my wife, caused her distress and mental anguish, the last thing I would do is invite them into my home. I would call a meeting, in an office and keep them far away from the place my kids reside and the place I consider my sanctuary.

      • Becks1 says:

        Yeah that part is weird to me too. Like by Blake’s timeline it sounds like by that point things were already pretty bad where Baldoni was concerned. So why call a private meeting at your house? Wouldn’t you want that properly documented with proper witnesses etc? But it sounds like they invited him to their house one night and JB is the one who brought the witnesses.

        If that had been the first thing that happened then maybe I could see it, but I thought there had already been some other incidents by that point?

      • DK says:

        @Becks1 and Mel, I’m reading the fact that there were multiple witnesses at the meeting, including at least one producer quoted above, to mean that BL did invite many relevant parties to this meeting at their home – it wasn’t just the 3 of them or anything.

        My guess is that, if she was already feeling uncomfortable at work from the harassment, her home might have felt like a safer place to give her more courage/comfort. And, perhaps even to make it seem friendly (come over, we’ll hash out our differences, etc.) and less formal/combative (I mean, I am assuming RR berating JB was not part of their initial plan!) – so perhaps a way to come to a resolution BEFORE having to involve more official channels. And it just did not work. (From her complaint before resuming filming post-strike, it seems like she was willing to avoid formal channels of investigation, etc., to move the movie along, keep everyone working, etc. – so this would align with that.)

        Of course, a more skeptical take might be that they held it at their home to get an upper hand in a power flex move (rather than a comforting/empowering move for BL to feel safer) over JB.

        So while I agree personally (I wouldn’t invite my harasser into my home), I can still see why it might appear to others as a move that might help facilitate the inevitable need to continue working together in a better environment?

      • Becks1 says:

        @DK there was a comment somewhere on one of these stories that JB brought the other parties (i.e. the producer etc), that their invite didn’t come from Blake and RR. So I think that’s why I’m sort of tilting my head at this meeting. It seems like a power move from BL and RR and like they weren’t fully expecting to JB to want to bring people along.

        Maybe they did it so it was a less formal environment like you said, but we know that RR berated JB over the fat shaming comments. So by that point it seems like things had deteriorated and RR was not going to be playing nice with JB. so why set this up this way?

        Its one of those things where I feel like I’m reading too much into it but its also just sticking out to me as something thats not quite fitting.

        (I also admit that we’ve been traveling so I’m only half following this drama lol.)

    • Yonati says:

      Justin Baldoni was (and still is) so beloved by the cast members of “Jane the Virgin.” It’s hard for me to believe it’s the same guy. Also the Bahai faith is very modest about sexual matters, so if he really does follow Bahai, he would not engage in sexual harrassment of any kind. As I heard the story, Justin wanted to know how much Blake weighed because he suffered an injury on a set some years back and needed to tell his trainer so that he would be physically ready to pick her up (in some scene of that movie). It is possible that BL and RR both thought that an unnecessary question and, thus, “fat shaming.” It’s also possible that a nursing BL felt ashamed of herself for some reason and wrongly accused JB of “fat shaming” because she was ashamed all on her own. And then RR went into a rage based on his wife’s discomfort and feelings of shame. It’s an interesting case because Justin Baldoni, unlike some others accused of sexual impropriety, is adamant that he did not do this. Still, it could all be a front. I get that.

      • Smart&Messy says:

        I don’t mean to offend, but the Christian and Islamic faiths are pretty conservative about sexuality and yet there are sexual predators even among their most devoted followers. Not to mention priests and other spiritual leaders.

  5. Menlisa says:

    I will probably get jumped but the evidence he provided says a lot.

    • Annie says:

      It’s important to keep an open until more info becomes available. I think it’s obvious Blake’s team planted some stories. It’s also possible that miscommunication caused a lot of misunderstanding. Why not ask Blake and HR if it was ok to show the birth video? I guess if the accusations were limited to both sides trying to destroy the other, it would be a lot more simple. But all these SA accusations, it’s best to wait.

      • seaflower says:

        Currently we are getting the versions that suits both side’s narratives and the truth is somewhere in the middle. I can see BL agreeing to see birth video (after all she’s given birth 4 times now) and RR getting pissed about things. RR comes across as very controlling. I see behaviour on all sides that is less than ideal, from some of the alleged behaviour on set, to the smear campaign during the promo tour.

        What a mess. I can’t see anyone coming out of this with an intact reputation.

      • Lady D says:

        “RR comes across as very controlling.” I think the same. More than once he has struck me as a very rigid person. Also, the type that likes to pull pranks, but hates having them pulled on him.

    • shocked says:

      One text exchange inviting him to Blake’s trailer to go over lines isn’t evidence that he didn’t show up unannounced multiple times and do inappropriate things.

      We still have an entire cast unfollowing him before the press tour also, so folks close to the actual events seem to have their own view contradicting Baldoni.

      • Anon says:

        I thought I remembered Blake being an advocate for breastfeeding in public so I was surprised when it came down to this point being one of the most talked about issues? I looked back and found the quote below. So maybe it’s more about the way she felt about Justin IN PARTICULAR entering the trailer and violating her space. There was also her mention of a situation of him walking in during the body make up removal that had nothing to do with breastfeeding.

        “I’m hoping that by the time my daughters become moms they’ll live in a society where moms feel comfortable and empowered to take care of their babies wherever they are. The more people see women breastfeeding in public, the more normal it becomes, so thank you for being a part of that,” she said.

        https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/blake-lively-breast-pump-instagram-b2471898.html

      • T says:

        If you’re a manipulative person, you know how to get your way with anyone. We don’t know what she was saying to the others. It the other person isn’t confrontational, that person looks like the bad guy.

        If no one else knew that she had invited him to her trailer, or signed her correspondence to him with a kiss symbol and then she whispered to all the other actors that he did this to her and that to her and she felt scared, they would be inclined to believe her.

      • Juju says:

        I agree, I don’t think one text confirming that he can come in while she is pumping is the same as “come in any time”. One can pump and cover themselves with advanced notice. There are other instances where she wasn’t covered and perhaps because of other lecherous behavior she was experiencing from JB and his producing partner, she no longer felt comfortable giving consent to them being in her trailer while she was partially undressed.

        And the back and forth on the birthing video (arguing whether she thought it was pornographic) is irrelevant to me. They wanted her to be nude (unplanned) for this birthing scene, she felt uncomfortable, the other producer insisted it’s something women do and later showed her a video of his naked wife. Let’s all imagine being in our place of employment and having our boss pull out a phone and show video of their fully nude spouse. Is there anyone who thinks that is acceptable? Even if it was related to a discussion??

        Just like Lizzo has found out, being in the entertainment industry doesn’t mean work place standards don’t apply to you. When you are a boss and an employer, you are held to a higher standard of behavior by the law.

      • DK says:

        @Anon, I’m also a big advocate for breastfeeding in public being more socially acceptable, and I did it quite often.

        But that doesn’t mean that advocating for a world in which women/parents are not judged for BF’ing in public means one is always comfortable doing so in our current (often very judgey about it) world.

        Also, just for me personally:

        – I was *never* comfortable breastfeeding in front of colleagues at work;

        – Pumping and breastfeeding are very different experiences and I never would have wanted an audience for that; and

        – In many states (CA for sure, don’t know about NY – I’m not sure where IEWU was filmed) employers are legally required to provide private spaces with a locking door, an outlet and table where parents can pump without any interruptions. Blake Lively should have been provided this, regardless of any stances on BFing.

        – This also means that even if she allowed JB to enter with her permission ONCE while pumping, he still would have needed consent each and every subsequent time, as well.

        So her being an advocate for an as-yet-unattained world in which BFing parents are NOT judged/shamed/made to feel uncomfortable for BFing in public does not in any way mean she needs to allow employers to enter her space while she is pumping. There is no hypocrisy or anything fishy about that, they are two entirely separate things that can be true at once.

    • TigerMcQueen says:

      I don’t think it proves anything.

  6. Anon says:

    It sounds like maybe you’re implying that Blake was Ok with everything until Ryan was NOT ok with it all?

    Re: “One thing I will say is that I absolutely believe that Ryan Reynolds raged out on Baldoni, and I think that might be a crucial piece of the larger story.”

  7. Brassy Rebel says:

    All I’m sure of at this point is that I don’t like any of these people. I think they would all be better off sitting down with a mediator and a therapist instead of all this round robin suing. No one is gonna win here or come out smelling like a rose.

  8. PunkyMomma says:

    These are all unsavory people.

  9. ML says:

    Meghan Twohey and Mike McIntire are award winning journalist for the NYTimes. Julie Tate worked for WaPo before joining the NYT as an investigative reporter. They have stated that they have thousands of documents they perused before writing their article. Presumably they were tipped off by Blake Lively et al, but unless all three of these professional reporters all of a sudden starting working as gossip columnists, opinion, or PR, I think they would approach their story as they were trained to do so. They did correct their record regarding Kjerst Flaa–here they are standing by their reporting.

    Justin Baldoni’s team used a British tabloid, the Daily Mail, to announce his lawsuit against the NYT. Why not go to the LA Times? Why use the paper with close connections to Melissa Nathan, Baldoni himself, which is owned by Lord Rothermere (someone who has been very biased and anti Meghan)??

    Much of what BL has alleged is with other people in the room. The women and Brandon Skelnar and Colleen Hoover all avoided Justin Baldoni. No one has refuted that Steven Sarowitz played a doctor in this film. At this point I’m still inclined to think that something happened and it’s not just a reputation-ego-PR fight.

    • sevenblue says:

      Yeah, all the reasons you have cited make Blake’s side more reliable. There was also another woman in the production with sexual harassment complaint against Justin if I remember correctly. If this is all misunderstanding, why did Justin start the SM campaign against her? He was supposed to be that feminist guy caring about DV victims. His mask slipped and I am sure he is furious about that.

    • Looty says:

      The New York times coverage of Baldoni lawsuit included link to original story and extended recap of original story. I interpreted it as full support for their reporters, almost doubling down on original story.

    • Alla says:

      Americans are oddly obsessed with awards, but what does this proves? That they are good at their job? Fine, but that doesn’t make them angels or without mistakes. And why did they went to a British outlet? Maybe because WME is powerfull enough to get every important American media outlet to not publish his story.
      We will see what will happen next. Its a mess.

      • sevenblue says:

        He didn’t go to the british media. He went to Daily Mail, a tabloid so unreliable Wikipedia doesn’t allow users to cite as a source. The journalistic awards represent the hard work, reliability and integrity of the awardees.

      • Chelsea says:

        JB didn’t just go to the UK tabloids. The first story that dropped about there being an issue between Justin and Blakd and which blamed her and Ryan being controlling for it was actually the Hollywood Reporter. After that there were drops in the meninist TMZ, Page Six, and Daily Fail. I believe Blake’s first pushback came a couple days later in People mag.

        Re the NY Times journalists i believe a lot of their story came from the actual court documents including the stuff around the HR complaints that were filed DURING filming. I’m not sure how you can sue a publication for reporting the contents of court documents but i guess we’ll see how this turns out.

      • Golly Gee says:

        @chelsea, They are suing because the New York Times cherry picked texts out of context and ignoring texts which contradicted the narrative. At least that is what JB contends.
        The NYT reporters made an assumption about kjersti Flaa’s role in the smear campaign against Lively. It was very sloppy. There was no evidence to back up their claim but IMO, they felt they could get away with it because she has no power. They did not even try to contact her before printing and have unfairly damaged her reputation. Had it been a bigger fish, they would’ve checked their facts. The fact that they played fast and loose with the truth once, means there may have been other instances in the article where they did the same. Disappointing.

    • TigerMcQueen says:

      All this and more.

      Any time someone goes to the DM first, I know all I need to know.

    • CruzMom says:

      I would recommend reading JB’s complaint in full before coming to any conclusions. It is very fact driven and has a number of receipts. Something is off here, no question.

      • Kate says:

        “Baldoni’s dated, hand-written notes from his meetings with the intimacy coordinator, which again, Lively declined attending, were read to Lively at her penthouse, where she insisted she and Baldoni meet to write sex scenes together. As it was, the sex scenes were not written and it was always Baldoni’s intention for them to be written with input from both the intimacy coordinator and Lively (the “female gaze” that Lively distorts in her CRD Complaint, which the Times then publishes). In response to a proposal from the intimacy coordinator that “Ryle” not orgasm after he satisfied “Lily,” Lively remarked: “I’d be mortified if that happened to me”, to which Baldoni, following Lively’s lead in what seemed like an attempt to connect and develop their characters, remarked that “those have been some of the most beautiful moments with [my wife] and I”.

        Lively again distorts this both in the “Protections for Return to Production” she made Wayfarer, Heath, and Baldoni sign, and in the CRD Complaint, which the Times publishes as fact without any investigation whatsoever. First, this suggestion did not originate with Baldoni, and Lively knew this.”

        https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25473221/justin-baldoni.pdf

    • MaisiesMom says:

      I don’t know enough about these two journalists to pass any judgment. But the Times has made some questionable choices about which stories to put on the front page, which to bury, when to release them and when to sit on them. Maggie Haberman won a Pulitzer for her coverage of the Trump/Russia ties, but she (or the paper, but I suspect both?) notably waited until after the 2016 election to release that story when it should have done so earlier. I canceled my subscription after that nothing that has happened since made me want to renew it. They have some very gifted people but that doesn’t mean they always have integrity as an institution.

    • Nic919 says:

      Where is the malice required in a defamation suit? I am not seeing it. Plus Twohey dealt with the Weinstein story and knows to use lawyers to review anything prior to print. Suing the Times screams like diversion to muddy the waters.

      • Smart&Messy says:

        I was surprised to see this development, that he sued the NYT. Did he respond to Blake’s suites first, with a counter suit or something? Before suing the NYT? I can’t keep up with this, and that’s probably what he wanted.

  10. Bumblebee says:

    When these conversations took place, texts were written, events happened, is very important. Especially this confrontation between Justin and Ryan. I know my husband would absolutely go batshit crazy on any man, who did what J did, and he is normally a calm, quiet person.
    And even as a ‘work discussion’ why is Justin showing people a video of his wife giving birth? This is the same man who produced a 27 minute proposal video of himself doing skits around town and posted it online. It really bothers me that he seems to have no respect for his wife and keeps acting like Ryan supporting and helping his own wife (Blake) is a terrible thing.

    • Goldie says:

      It wasn’t Justin who showed Blake the video of his wife giving birth. It was a different producer, Jaime Heath.

    • MaisiesMom says:

      Showing her that video was weird and IMO indicates poor judgment. It doesn’t equate to sexual harassment, at least not in and of itself. But context matters, and anything he said before, during or after the incident about his wife’s body or Blake’s might be enlightening.

      • TigerMcQueen says:

        Actually, showing her the video can be considered harassment.

      • Arizona says:

        it does equate sexually harassment in the workplace, even if they felt it was appropriate to show given the conversation. showing someone nude images or video in the workplace, especially unwanted, is sexual harassment. and when it is used to try to coerce her to perform the scene naked when she didn’t want to, that’s further sexual harassment.

        when all of the costars, etc, refused to do promo with him and have now stated their clear support for Blake, I’m not sure why everyone is writing off it as her just “having power”. LaineyGossip does a great job of explaining why Justin was actually the one with more power in this scenario.

        I also don’t think we need to do the “well they both suck” thing. did no one learn anything from Amber Heard? because a lot of you are falling for the same exact tricks here because you don’t like Blake.

        (also, everyone loves to bring up the plantation wedding, but no one brings up the 200K donation to NAACP or statement her and Ryan made where they acknowledged their previous failures during the George Floyd protests. instead we just call her Plantation Barbie and call her a racist. again, falling for the same dumb playbook. I’m begging y’all to look more critically at things before being so swayed. you act exactly how Meghan haters do on here every time Blake or Taylor come up, and it’s weird.

      • MaisiesMom says:

        I would agree that showing her the video is harassment, but if he asked permission first and she consented to watch it, that would be different. It doesn’t seem like he did, though.

  11. Daniella says:

    I am oddly getting drawn into this saga..especially the Justin/ryan of it all. Per the filing..Justin said he was invited to their penthouse for a talk and brought along studio execs (who were not originally invited)…

    So why were they just inviting him over to “talk” late at night at their house? With presumably their kids there after all this???

    • HillaryIsAlwaysRight says:

      Young children are put to bed by 7:30 pm. And if she was still breast feeding, it would be more convenient for Lively to be home if the baby woke up, so she could nurse the baby back to sleep. Going out at night can be impossible for nursing mothers. It was for me.

      • Becks1 says:

        I dont think that’s the case for Blake though.

      • Smart&Messy says:

        I don’t think that’s the case for Blake either. She had no problem travelling to the Super Bowl in early 2024. Shooting the movie also finished around early 2024 when the baby was about 12 months old. So I don’t think breastfeeding was a reason why they invited JB to their home instead of going to an office.

        Also, small kids going to bed at 7.30: I always realize I was the worst new mom.

  12. Bea says:

    I would just love to know what Gina Rodriguez’s experience was working with him on Jane the Virgin. Hoping she didn’t experience the nastiness Blake has. But if she did, hope she can speak out.

    • Thinking says:

      She spoke favourably of him prior to the lawsuits coming out.

    • Jen says:

      It wouldn’t surprise me if he knew to behave himself when he was not the producer and director, and only did what he wanted when he had his billionaire-friend backed production company behind him.

    • Arizona says:

      I’ve been curious as well but she’s mostly disappeared after making a bunch of very tone deaf comments over the years. not sure she’d be helpful to chime in on this, for either side.

      I do think it’s interesting that to my knowledge none of his Jane costars have said a thing.

    • Smart&Messy says:

      Maybe women learned a thing or two from the Katherine Heigles and Meghan Foxes of Hollywood and learned not to speak unfavourably about their past male coworkers. Which suites said male coworkers just fine.

  13. Lizzie Bathory says:

    There’s something about Justin Baldoni buying the rights to *this story* that’s struck me as weird since the public falling out with all of the women, including the author. He wasn’t a big name actor/director, it’s a story about domestic violence & his whole brand has been “male feminist podcaster” (which, well….). If even half of what Blake alleges & has receipts for is true, it was a toxic workplace. And what kind of stand up guy hires Johnny Depp’s attack dogs? My guess is this movie was supposed to burnish his nice guy credentials, up his profile & solidly insulate him from accusations of predatory behavior, which may well go back quite a while if Hollywood history is any indicator.

    And the plaintiffs’ problem (besides discovery lol), is going to be proving falsehood in the NYT’s reporting. And at least for Justin, they’ll have to determine whether actual malice is relevant.

    • windyriver says:

      You make some very interesting points about why JB might have chosen this project. Will be curious to see what else comes out as this saga continues.

  14. VJ says:

    It’s highly likely that a judge will dismiss Baldoni’s case well before reaching trial. It’s extremely difficult to succeed against the media when you’re a public figure as Baldoni will need to show the NYT acted with “actual malice” when it published (allegedly) defamatory statements. I believe Baldoni and his attorney know they can’t meet the burden but filing this complaint allows them to get their “side” of the story out before the public.

    As for Lively wanting to avoid discovery, Baldoni’s claim is disingenuous. His attorney well knows that Blake is required to file a sexual harassment claim with the CA Civil Rights Division prior to proceeding with her own lawsuit in state and/or federal court.

    • Chelsea says:

      And it looks like she did just file in federal court so you’re right it is a very disingenuous claim.

  15. Shore-mom says:

    While this is definitely a mess, and I always believe there are two sides to every story…Justin going to the Daily Fail about this says A LOT. Also, I would encourage you all to watch his 30 minute “wedding proposal”. It’s beyond cringey and really gives you a glimpse into just how narcissistic he is.

  16. Thinking says:

    I’m so confused after reading this.

  17. Kebbie says:

    This has virtually no chance of being successful. His filing is sloppy compared to hers and he doesn’t even address most of the accusations.

    This is purely an attempt to muddy the waters enough for people to say, “oh, it’s a he said/she said. It’s a wash.” And move on.

    Blake not wanting to meet the intimacy coordinator before they started filming does not explain why the intimacy coordinator was not on set while they were filming.

    A single invite to her dressing room while she is pumping does not mean he’s allowed access at all times until the end of filming.

    Shoving a video of a naked woman in someone’s face without consent AT WORK is always inappropriate whether it’s pornography or a woman giving birth.

    And he basically confirmed Blake’s story about him crying to her about how ugly and old she looked. He just claims he “teared up” and was only relaying that it was Sony who was worried about how ugly and old she looked.

    This is a lame attempt at fighting back. But because he’s a somewhat attractive man, people are actually falling for it. Again.

    • Kateeee says:

      Thank you! I dont care for Blake a bit. But give me a break with these completely unresponsive “who, me?” explanations!

      On what planet would a male coworker EVER need to show a mother of 4 his own wife’s (deeply private!!!) birthing video? Over her objections? While trying to persuade her to get naked for a scene?

      • babs says:

        All this 👆.

        Also, it’s kinda wild a guy’s like, No… *this* is how women give birth – I have video proof!, to a woman who’s given birth several times.

    • MrsBanjo says:

      All of this.

    • Lilly (with the double-L) says:

      Saw this after replying above. I agree, he, with lots of successful attempts by others to pull from, is stirring the pot. Attacking NYT/media is also popular in these times. I’m not defending them, or media in general, but that has gone well for so many, clearly.

  18. ME says:

    Everytime I watch TV, they play the commercial with Nicepool talking about her after baby body in the Deadpool movie. So cringy, Ryan…

  19. Isabel says:

    RR was known for being a precious, difficult a**hat. Lainey called him out waaaaaay back when. He has carefully crafted a new persona but, as a 🇨🇦, I see all the way through it. His hilarity thinly masks seething rage.

  20. Okay says:

    I’m genuinely surprised how much hate Blake Lively gets here…. I’m usually lock in step with the general take on situations. I think she’s made questionable decisions. I don’t share her same likes – dislikes. But I can also rationalize them a fair bit the same way I can a lot of other people’s decisions and choices. No one’s perfect. She obviously isn’t. Nor am I. I think this guy is raising major red flags. So surprised the amount of people taking more issue with her actions.

    • Steph says:

      @okay, all the reasons ppl are using to say that that don’t like her makes it easier for her to believe this happened to her. She’s rude, she’s full of herself, she’s self important. That’s what ppl are saying and that’s exactly the type of woman a man would want to “put in her place.” I don’t think that’ll work in the court of law but in the court of my opinion it helps her case.

      • Steph says:

        I had a typo. All the reasons people are giving not to like her makes it easier for ME to believe this actually happened to her.*

        Wow that typo completely changed what I was trying to say. 🤦

    • Cassie says:

      Shoker people are not lining up to defend a racist who supported both Harvey Weinstein and Woody Allen

    • Nic919 says:

      Let’s not forget he hired a crisis management firm so with all the new names we see posted here do we really think their job is finished?

  21. babs says:

    I was under the impression that Lively’s California complaint is how lawsuits are supposed to start there. That’s what all those Youtube lawyers say at least, that you have to receive permission to sue by filing a complaint with the California Civil Rights Department. So either all those Youtube lawyers are wrong or Baldoni’s team is trying to paint this in a negative light. Guess which narrative I believe?

    • AmyB says:

      Exactly. I saw Emily D. Baker explain this very thing. Lively had to file the civil complaint first before anything else could be done.

      As far as the rest of it goes – everyone looks pretty bad here IMO.

    • Jais says:

      That’s where I’m a little confused. She first filed with CCRD but hadn’t yet filed a civil suit or a criminal suit. But she needed their permission first? And then JB filed against the nyt, not blake. And now blake has filed a federal suit against JB.Is it civil or criminal? I’m confused on these parts.

      • VJ says:

        Due to the nature of Blake’s claim (sexual harassment), she was first required to file with the CA Civil Rights Division (CCRD). She can’t move forward on this claim in civil court until she gets permission from the CCRD. Her most recent lawsuit (which was of the nature that didn’t require filing with the CCRD) is a civil claim, not criminal. You’re correct, Baldoni only sued the NYT.

      • Jais says:

        Thank u. So I’m trying to understand. Her most recent lawsuit is civil. And is that one for SH and smear/defamation(?) charges. Is she still awaiting permission from the CCRD for a different suit? Are there two suits going on now?

  22. Steph says:

    When I first saw this I noted what I found odd about RR going off on him. Blake accuses Justin of walking in her trailer while I’m various states of undress. But Justin said RR went off on him for fat shaming. I think the trailer thing is definitely the higher offense here. So I thought it was odd that the fat shaming charge was what took RR over the edge. While I don’t promote violence, I wouldn’t even be mad if RR beat Justin’s ass if he was really walking in on her. So all of that just sounds off to me. But I can’t tell which party is the one that’s off.

    • Hannah1 says:

      Opposite effect for me.

      When I first heard about Lively’s perception of having been ‘fat-shamed’ I immediately suspected that was the source of her deep rage and desire for revenge. If you have experience with ED and body dysmorphia (your own or another’s) you know that it is a lens that can shape everything into massively distorted and obsessive narratives. Any other slight or discomfort (such as being walked in on) can be overlooked, but a fat-shaming event is absolutely unforgivable.

      Remember Lively’s abusive treatment of the reporter who asked innocently about her ‘little bump’? Put ED into the picture and it is most likely that Baldoni’s behavior was either exemplary or just normally human, while the abnormality is in her interpretation.

      Reynolds ‘going off’ over the imagined fat-shaming — which seems peculiar to someone who doesn’t understand the dynamics at play — fits with him simply taking what she says at face value and not questioning why she had such an extreme reaction.

      Add in the power she and Reynolds wield and the fact that nobody else around has the insight and position to recommend she seek therapy to handle her pain and one ends up with this mess.

  23. Arhus says:

    I’m curious about his response to the birthing scene allegation where he hired his buddy as the doctor and everyone was filming her privates? Why was it all out in the open to begin with?

    • Anon says:

      Read his lawsuit. All of it. No one was filming “her privates.”

      • HillaryIsAlwaysRight says:

        But there was someone standing by her privates, who was not an actor. Just some friend of the director/producer. Gross.

  24. Thinking says:

    None of this was on my bingo card for 2024 or 2025.

  25. HillaryIsAlwaysRight says:

    Pumping and breast feeding are not the same. While pumping, you can cover yourself up, and you’re not handling a wriggling baby. A nursing baby often doesn’t want a modesty cover on him or her while nursing. My kids wouldn’t let me cover up while nursing. I had to leave a public place and go nurse in the car lots of times, to get the kind of privacy and quiet that was needed.

    • Babs says:

      Also, permitting him to enter once is not blanket permission for going in her trailer all the time

    • TigerMcQueen says:

      Will add to that, saying it’s ok to come over while she’s pumping doesn’t mean the person coming in has permission to open the door without first announcing themselves. Just putting that here because that’s another nuance I haven’t seen mentioned. I had to pump a lot after my first was born, and I would tell certain people it was ok to come to the bedroom while I was pumping…but they were expected to tap on the door to make sure I was comfortable/covered before they came in. If they hadn’t, I would have not been happy. The while “BL texted and said he could come over!” defense is very disingenuous.

  26. MaisiesMom says:

    Well this is messy AF and I can’t seem to look away. Now the NYT is involved. I have strong and decidedly mixed feelings about that paper and have at least since the 2016 election, after which I canceled my subscription. Their journalists are very gifted but the paper itself makes some very questionable editorial decisions. Also, Maggie Haberman can bite me.

    I feel like a lot of things can be true at once. Reynolds can be an asshat and irascible but still be justified in his anger. Lively can be an entitled jerk at times, but if Baldoni and Heath made her feel unsafe on set that’s not OK. Showing her a video of his wife giving birth? It’s a weird choice, but context matters. What did he say while he did it? Something inappropriate about his wife’s body or Lively’s? Did he force it on her or did he have consent to do it? People have varying boundaries about these things.

    This drama is way more intriguing than the movie itself. I kind of feel badly for Brandon Sklenar who co-starred with them but seems to have stayed out of this thicket.

  27. ML says:

    https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/types-cases/civil-cases

    Bryan Freedman should know this. The fact that he tried to pass doubt on Blake Lively for filing a complaint first leads me to believe Baldoni suing the NYT is a PR move.
    Handwritten notes? Different versions of texts? Jennifer Abel’s work phone (notice it’s not referred to as her private phone here) had conversations and emails. If I’m supposed to choose who is more likely to have original material, my gut is going with the NYT at this point.

    Part of the PR takedown of Lively was using her past to make her more unlikeable so as to make Baldoni look good. Guess what a whole bunch of posters are doing with the NYT above? Wth does Maggie Haberman have to do with her colleagues’ article? Really. And now a bunch of posters are backing the Daily Mail, NY Post, TMZ over the NYT?

    Please be aware that Sarowitz, the powerful, rich billionaire, Baldoni, Nathan, Abel, Heath and their companies are trying to make this about a Blake and Ryan story. This is taking focus away from BL’s (and female cast and crew’s) experiences with sexual harrassment.

    • HillaryIsAlwaysRight says:

      THIS! Thank you.

    • Becks1 says:

      People are using Maggie Haberman et al because there are a bunch of comments indicating the NYT can do no wrong and never has any agenda when it comes to the stories it prints.

      That’s just absolutely not true.

      I think this lawsuit is a PR move to get his side out there, and I dont think its going to go anywhere, but some people started out with comments about how the NYT of course knows what its doing etc so I think some people are just pointing out that the NYT is far from flawless and as an institution, it definitely has an agenda of its own.

      • ML says:

        I think I would have less issues if the people saying that the NYT is untrustworthy for publishing ahead of deadline (according to Freedman), Maggie Haberman, makes mistakes, etc… IF those people applied the same logic to the the Daily Mail (and other publications used by Baldoni, Nathan, and Abel). JB got his side out in Lord Rothermere’s publication, which I maintain is further from flawless than the NYT, and the DM also has its own agenda.

      • Goldie says:

        There were some leaks to the Daily Mail before he filed. However, Variety is the publication that first published Baldoni’s official lawsuit.

  28. Veronica S. says:

    There can be discrepancies in materials, but at the end of the day, he hired that firm. He conducted those emails. They waged that campaign. That’s the problem overall. He can quibble these points in a court of law, but he has to prove to a judge that the overall point of the article is fallacious, and evidence suggests that’s not really the case. Misrepresenting how she filed is also suspicious to me, which makes this feel like desperation.

    Lively and Reynolds are probably not the nicest people, but Baldoni is starting to look more and more like a man who tried to punch down but was actually below his pay grade.

    • Thinking says:

      I have a question because I guess I’m getting lost in the onslaught of information. Is Lively’s case about defamation or harassment? This is a genuine question because I think I’m getting confused over what both sides are arguing in terms of the PR stuff.

  29. Diamond Rottweiler says:

    Hmm. I worked with the Times on multiple articles when I was spokesperson for an organization—the idea of them bum rushing the fact checking & cherry picking the events sounds specious to me. And to what end? They’d knowingly risk this kind of lawsuit why? Plus the reporters involved are seasoned hands. I guess we’ll have to wait and see, but my spidey sense is this guy has the billionaire back up to double down and just keep muddying the waters. Right now it feels very Trumpy/Deppy/Pitty et al to me.

  30. Thinking says:

    How much money does Justin Baldoni have? Is he richer than we know?