Photo Credit: Getty Images
A federal judge has dismissed Justin Baldoni's $400 million defamation suit against Blake Lively, marking a decisive legal moment in a case that stirred intense media attention. The lawsuit also named Ryan Reynolds, publicist Leslie Sloane, and The New York Times among the accused. Central to the ruling was the court's affirmation that Lively's harassment claims were legally protected and not subject to defamation challenges.
The conflict originated after Blake Lively filed a federal complaint alleging sexual harassment and workplace retaliation during the production of It Ends With Us. According to her filings, Baldoni and others associated with the film's production allegedly launched a smear campaign in response to her internal concerns about working conditions.
In response, Baldoni accused Lively, Reynolds, and The New York Times of conspiring to destroy his career. His lawsuit included sweeping allegations of defamation, extortion, and tortious interference. The centerpiece of his claim focused on Lively's accusations being shared with the California Civil Rights Department and later reported by The New York Times.
Judge Lewis J. Liman ruled Monday that the harassment allegations were protected under litigation privilege. This legal principle shields parties from defamation suits when statements are made as part of official proceedings. "Such claims cannot form the basis of a defamation action," Judge Liman wrote in his opinion. He also reaffirmed that The New York Times was protected under the "fair report" privilege, which grants immunity to media outlets reporting on judicial matters with accuracy.
Blake Lively's legal team welcomed the decision. In a statement, they called it "a total victory and a complete vindication," not just for Lively but also for the others named. "The court saw through what was clearly a retaliatory lawsuit," said her attorney. They also signaled their intention to seek attorneys' fees, treble damages, and punitive damages against Baldoni and other associated parties, describing the litigation as abusive and groundless.
While most of the claims were struck down, Judge Liman left open the possibility for Baldoni to refile limited portions of the suit related to alleged interference with contractual relationships. However, legal experts suggest the ruling significantly weakens any future claims.
The dismissal reflects a growing judicial emphasis on protecting speech related to legal proceedings and workplace misconduct. It also underlines how public figures, even in high-profile disputes, are not exempt from the boundaries of legal privilege and press freedom.
