Blake Lively Accuses Justin Baldoni of “Scorched Earth Litigation”Tactics
In recent developments, Blake Lively’s legal representatives have leveled serious accusations against Justin Baldoni’s legal team, claiming they are employing “scorched earth litigation”methods. This tactic allegedly aims to intimidate individuals who have come forward with allegations of sexual harassment.
Ron Sokol, a Manhattan Beach lawyer, elaborates on this approach in a 2018 post on Daily Breeze, describing “scorched earth litigation”as a relentless tactic wielded by one party to exhaust their opponent. This may involve excessive motions or unwarranted discovery requests, forcing the opposition to navigate a complex web of legal challenges, thereby depleting their resources. Interestingly, the term is derived from General Sherman’s aggressive military strategies in the Civil War.
Lively’s Attorneys Highlight the Dangers of These Tactics
Mike Gottlieb and Esra Hudson, representing Lively, expressed their concerns in a statement to Us Weekly on April 10:
“The chilling message scorched earth litigation sends to victims is stay silent or be destroyed. As demonstrated in the reply brief Ms. Lively filed today, the Wayfarer Parties’ attempt to slap Ms. Lively with a retaliatory lawsuit for her decision to speak out against the sexual harassment she experienced on set has not only failed miserably but exposes them to substantial economic damages.”
They further asserted:
“Ms. Lively will continue to show all victims that they are not alone, that they do not have to stay silent, and that the law is on their side.”
Accusations of Undermining Victim Protection Laws
In their statement, Lively’s attorneys took issue with Baldoni’s alleged efforts to undermine legal protections for victims of sexual harassment. They remarked:
“Mr. Baldoni has gone from monetizing a brand devoted to believing and supporting women, to leading the charge to tear down the very law that protects women who come forward about sexual assault, harassment, and discrimination. California’s sexual harassment privilege, AB 933, was enacted to stop perpetrators of sexual harassment from abusing defamation lawsuits to sue their accusers into oblivion.”
The attorneys argued that Baldoni’s legal strategy appeared convoluted, claiming:
“Wayfarer Parties have tied themselves in knots trying to state a defamation claim against Ms. Lively that is not barred by the statute of limitations or wholly contained within her Legal Complaints, which they concede cannot form the basis of any actionable claims.”
Background of the Legal Dispute
The legal conflict between Justin Baldoni and Blake Lively traces back to December 2024, following Lively’s allegations of sexual harassment during the filming of It Ends With Us. Lively also accused Baldoni of orchestrating a smear campaign aimed at damaging her reputation during the film’s promotional phase.
In retaliation, Baldoni initiated a $400 million defamation lawsuit against Lively and her husband, Ryan Reynolds, asserting that the couple attempted to sabotage his film. Leslie Sloane, publicist for Lively, and her PR firm were also included as defendants in this high-stakes suit.
Lively’s Motion to Dismiss and Ongoing Legal Battles
On March 20, Lively submitted a motion to dismiss Baldoni’s defamation lawsuit, characterizing it as “vengeful and rambling.”She contended:
“The law prohibits weaponizing defamation lawsuits, like this one, to retaliate against individuals who have filed legal claims or have publicly spoken out about sexual harassment and retaliation,”
Responding to Lively’s motion on April 3, Bryan Freedman, Baldoni’s legal counsel, argued that Lively’s actions could set a “dangerous precedent,”infringing on his client’s First Amendment right to a fair trial:
“Ms. Lively and her circle of Hollywood elites cannot prevent my clients from exercising their constitutional right to petition the court to clear their names from her false and harmful claims. What Ms. Lively is attempting to do is to set a dangerous precedent by barring the courthouse doors to my clients and punishing them for having their day in court, a right protected by the First Amendment,”
Lively’s motion was filed shortly after Ryan Reynolds also sought to dismiss the lawsuit, maintaining that he had no role in the production of It Ends With Us. He portrayed his involvement as merely supportive of his wife. Reynolds further contended that Baldoni’s claims stemmed from “hurt feelings,”lacking any substantive merit.
Adding fuel to the fire, Reynolds’ motion addressed allegations that he had defamed Baldoni by referring to him as a “predator.”The filing mentioned that Reynolds genuinely believed Baldoni’s behavior warranted such characterizations, framing it as a constitutionally protected opinion.
Leslie Sloane, too, pursued a motion to dismiss the lawsuit against her and her firm, Vision PR, in February.
The intricate legal battle between Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni is far from resolved, with a trial set to commence in March 2026, bringing renewed attention to the issues of victim advocacy and legal ethics in Hollywood.