Blake
Lively
(Photo
by
NILS
MEILVANG/Ritzau
Scanpix/AFP
via
Getty
Images)
The
Blake
Lively-Justin
Baldoni
litigation
is
off
to
a
predictably
batshit
start,
with
Lively’s
lead
counsel
already
accusing
his
counterpart
of
professional
misconduct
and
defamation.
The
fun
started
on
New
Year’s
Eve
when
Lively
filed
a
sexual
harassment
complaint
in
New
York
against
her
former
co-star
and
producer,
along
with
his
production
company
Wayfarer
and
various
publicists
and
partners.
At
the
very
same
time,
Baldoni
was
docketing
a
spectacularly
ill-judged
defamation
suit
in
California
state
suit
against
the
New
York
Times,
alleging
that
it
laundered
false
claims
from
Lively’s
civil
administrative
complaint
to
spare
the
actor
from
having
to
defend
herself
in
court:
Notably,
Lively
chose
not
to
file
a
lawsuit
against
Baldoni,
Wayfarer,
or
any
of
the
Plaintiffs—a
choice
that
spared
her
from
the
scrutiny
of
the
discovery
process,
including
answering
questions
under
oath
and
producing
her
communications.
This
decision
was
no
accident.
First,
her
administrative
complaint
is
rife
with
blatant
falsehoods
and
egregious
misrepresentations
that
would
have
subjected
her
to
dismissal
if
not
sanctions.
Second,
pursuing
formal
legal
action
would
have
derailed
her
true
objective:
an
orchestrated
campaign
to
rehabilitate
her
public
image.
On
January
16,
Baldoni
et
al
filed
suit
in
New
York
against
Lively,
along
with
her
husband
Ryan
Reynolds,
demanding
$400
million
for
defamation
and
“civil
extortion.”
The
cases
were
designated
as
related,
and
both
landed
on
the
docket
of
Judge
Lewis
Liman,
who
just
got
rid
of
Rudy
Giuliani
and
is
probably
wondering
what
he’s
done
to
deserve
a
double
portion
of
this
bullshit.
Correspondence
docketed
by
Lively’s
lawyer
Michael
Gottlieb
of
Willkie
Farr
shows
that
he
tried
to
effectuate
service
through
Baldoni’s
lawyer
Bryan
Freedman,
an
experienced
media
litigator
from
California.
Freedman
not
only
ignored
those
requests,
but
disregarded
Gottlieb’s
attempt
to
waive
personal
service
for
Lively
and
Reynolds.
“Plaintiffs’
process
servers
made
attempts
at
service
on
the
evening
of
January
18,
2025,
which
resulted
in
one
of
Defendants’
employees
(who
is
not
a
party
to
this
action)
being
followed
to
the
residence
in
which
she
was
staying
by
an
unknown
vehicle
down
a
dark
road
late
at
night,”
Gottlieb
complained
in
a
letter
to
the
court
on
January
19.
“This
conduct
was
sufficiently
alarming
as
to
cause
that
employee
to
file
a
police
report.”
Freedman
counters
that
Lively
and
Reynolds
falsely
attested
that
Baldoni
requested
the
waiver
of
personal
service
in
his
offensive
suit.
To
be
fair,
they
signed
the
standard
form
waiver
which
says
“I
have
received
your
request
to
waive
service
of
a
summons
in
this
action
along
with
a
copy
of
the
complaint,”
since
it
does
not
appear
to
have
occurred
to
the
Southern
District
of
New
York
that
a
plaintiff
would
insist
on
his
right
to
harass
a
defendant
by
executing
personal
service.
But
waiving
service
extends
the
time
to
reply
from
30
days
to
60,
and
so
Freedman
demands
that
his
clients’
response
deadlines
be
extended
to
harmonize
them
with
the
earlier-filed
suit.
“In
sum,
the
Lively
Parties
falsely
engineered
an
extension
of
time,
until
March
20,
2025,
to
respond
to
the
Complaint
in
the
Wayfarer
Case
but
now
refuse
to
consent
to
the
same
deadline
for
the
Wayfarer
Parties,
even
though
doing
is
in
the
interests
of
justice
and
efficiency
in
cases
that
are
not
only
related
but
likely
will
be
consolidated,”
he
huffs.
Meanwhile,
Freedman
has
been
going
on
every
podcast
he
can
to
trash
Lively,
and
she
is
PISSED.
Since
December
20,
Gottlieb
has
been
sending
cease
and
desist
letters
accusing
Baldoni and
Freedman
of
defaming
his
clients
by
falsely
claiming
that
Wayfarer
took
“no
proactive
measures
…
with
media
or
otherwise”
and
“only
responded
to
incoming
media
inquiries
to
ensure
balanced
and
factual
reporting
and
monitored
social
activity”
prior
to
the
New
York
Times
article
about
Baldoni.
“Lawyers
are
not
publicity
agents.
We
are
required
to
follow
a
different
set
of
professional
standards
than
publicists
and
crisis
managers.
One
of
those
standards
is
the
prohibition
against
knowingly
making
factual
misrepresentations,
even
when
doing
so
would
help
defend
or
promote
our
clients’
interests,”
Gottlieb
warned,
noting
that
the
California
Rules
of
Professional
Conduct
require
lawyers
to
refrain
from
public
misrepresentations.
The
letter
also
accuses
Freedman
of
continuing
his
client’s
breach
of
the
agreement
signed
in
November
of
2023,
which
barred
Baldoni
from
retaliating
against
Lively
as
a
condition
of
her
return
to
finish
the
film.
In
a
letter
to
Judge
Liman,
Gottlieb
accused
Freedman
of
deliberately
seeking
to
prejudice
the
jury
pool,
in
violation
of
N.Y.
Rules
of
Pro.
Conduct
3.6(a),
which
bars
an
attorney
from
making
“an
extrajudicial
statement
that
the
lawyer
knows
or
reasonably
should
know
will
be
disseminated
by
means
of
public
communication
and
will
have
a
substantial
likelihood
of
materially
prejudicing
an
adjudicative
proceeding
in
the
matter.”
“The
Lively-Reynolds
Parties
intend
to
seek
an
appropriate
protective
order
to
govern
further
proceedings
in
this
case,
but
given
the
imminent
harm
caused
by
Mr.
Freedman’s
misleading
and
selective
statements
and
leaks,
we
respectfully
request
that
this
Court
schedule
a
hearing
as
soon
as
possible
to
address
the
appropriate
conduct
of
counsel
moving
forward
in
these
two
related
matters,”
he
concluded.
As
of
now,
Judge
Liman
appeared
uninterested
in
wading
into
this
sniping.
This
afternoon
he
issued
a
show
cause
order demanding
to
know
why
these
cases
should
not
be
consolidated.
Wayfarer
v.
Lively
[Docket
via
Court
Listener]
Lively
v.
Wayfarer
[Docket
via
Court
Listener]
Liz
Dye lives
in
Baltimore
where
she
produces
the
Law
and
Chaos substack and podcast.