Do they have a case?

In recordings from the set of “IT Ends With Us”, Justin Baldoni and Blake Lively engage a polite, even friendly, discussion about how to show that their characters fall in love. Should they kiss? Or is it more romantic for them to speak?

He smiles. She laughs. Still, they began to despise each other.

She believed that Baldoni – the co -actor, the director and the study leader – exceeded her boundaries; He felt she couldn’t take direction. This simple interaction from May 2023 – which in other circumstances could have been marked for “creative differences” – has bloomed over the past month for a comprehensive legal war that has led to a civil rights complaint and four lawsuits (so far).

In this controversy, which is still taking place, Baldoni and Lively are each primarily concerned with their public reputation. But the longer it lasts, the more each one may need a clear legal victory to ensure justification.

“It is predominantly PR campaigns dressed up as litigation,” said Gregory Doll, a lawsuit who has handled high-profile entertainment cases. “But there are teeth in the lawsuits.”

The lawsuits claim a number of charges and models. Cut charges Lively Baldoni for harassment and retaliation, and Baldoni accuses her of defamation.

Baldoni sued Lively, her husband Ryan Reynolds and their publicist, Leslie Sloane. In a separate suit he also went after the New York Times, claims That it Baked him by taking text messages out of context and leaving livelight’s tale. (Baldoni’s former Publicist, Steph Jones, sued him too.)

Regardless of the benefits of the Times case, the paper has a procedural mechanism to at least stop it for a few years. The Times can submit a strike request according to California’s anti-patch statut and argue that Baldoni is trying to keep speech protected by the first amendment. Even if a judge will hand out the paper, it can still submit an immediate appeal, which would tie the case for a while.

In the second injury case, Lively and the others are accused of spreading a false tale to the New York Times. Baldoni’s team brought the case in a federal court in New York – although California law regulates her contract – which means that Lively and the other defendants will not be able to use the California Anti -Lapp law.

They can seek to dismiss 179 Pages ComplaintPartly on the grounds that it sounds like an extended counter -tale, rather than articulating the alleged slander point by point.

“They have to point out what statements they think were false, what states that they were statements about facts and not opinions, and show that they are not subject to some privilege,” says Caitlin Kovacs, a lawyer at Benesch , working with defamation cases.

For the most part, she says, Baldoni seems to claim that Lively has distorted his words or taken things out of context – not that she has invented them out of the blue air.

“It seems that there are core claims that he doesn’t really reject,” says Kovacs. “She says he called her sexy. He admits he says he told her she smelled well. He admitted he was doing it. It will be difficult statements to turn around and use as the basis for an libel claim. “

In both cases, Baldoni’s team should also find a way around the privileges that protect the plaintiffs’ right to sue and the media’s right to cover litigation. The Times could simply point to Lively’s Civil Rights ComplaintsAnd says it had all the right to inform its readers of a legal controversy.

“It is unlikely that Lively or someone who is indicted in these cases would be responsible for something they put in a lawsuit,” says Kovacs.

On the other hand, Lively’s Case against Baldoni does not suffer from obvious procedural obstacles. The claims of sexual harassment and retaliation require fact -based analysis, which means that the case can easily survive to a brief judgment or go all the way to trial.

As for the harassment claim, a jury had to find out that Baldoni and producer Jamey Heath was involved in “serious or extensive” wrongdoing sufficient to create a hostile working environment.

However, the sibling in Lively’s color lies in the retaliatory requirement. Her lawyers were able to obtain excellent evidence in the form of text messages from Baldoni’s publicists, where they talked about trying to “destroy” or “bury” her. Lively Lively claims that Baldoni’s team was smearing her as a refund to talk about the harassment.

To prove it needed Lively to show that her claim of harassment was valid. But she had to show that she was exposed to an “unwanted employment action”, typically something like a degradation or termination, as a consequence of saying.

“It’s going to be difficult to prove,” says lawyer Camron Dowlatshahi, who specializes in employment cases.

Dowlatshahi notes that the alleged smear campaign took place after LIVYY’s employment was actually over. He also claims that it can be difficult to prove injuries, such as a lost film role, due to negative posts or articles allegedly planted by Baldoni’s advertising team.

Baldoni also sued Lively due to other defamation. In a contractual interference, he claims that she and Reynolds were pushing his agency, WME, to drop him – which WME rejects. He also claims that Lively took the creative control over “It Ends With Us” – even though he did not defend Sony, who allegedly gave Lively the power to make his own cut.

Baldoni’s case also stated an allegation of “civil extortion”, arguing that she used false allegations and threats to influence him.

In other words, lawyers say there is enough substance in the trial to keep it going for some time. The process can also create its own momentum as the animosity is built up, which could potentially lead to a repetition of the slander case between Johnny Depp and Amber Heard.

Dowlatshahi describes the situation as “a pure public relations game from all angles,” but says it may be the lawyers’ obligation to try the case before the public court court.

“My role is to serve my client best,” he says. “If my client is keen to preserve his or her reputation and hurt the other person’s reputation, then that’s what I want to do.”

In the end, however, they can slide each other enough to consider an amicable solution.

“I think at some point that both sides will realize that there will be a public fatigue with this back and forth,” he says. “Repent they don’t benefit in any way.”

Doll agrees: “Once the dust has settled, will calmer heads prevail.”