Blake Lively has now filed to dismiss Justin Baldoni’s $400 million defamation lawsuit against her in scathing new legal documents.
In court documents obtained by DailyMail.com, Lively’s attorneys slammed Baldoni’s ‘vengeful and rambling’ lawsuit as a ‘profound abuse of the legal process that has no place in federal court.’
In a shocking twist, the documents also state that Wayfarer’s legal efforts against Lively may end up costing them $100 million due to a mandatory fee shifting provision in California Civil Code Section 47.1, which provides financial protections to individuals with claims of sexual harassment and similar allegations should they win a defamation lawsuit brought against them.
It’s the latest update in the messy legal ordeal between Lively and Baldoni, which officially began in December 2024 after Lively accused her It Ends With Us co-star of sexual harassment and a retaliatory smear campaign followed by a defamation lawsuit filed against Lively, her husband Justin Baldoni, and her publicist Leslie Sloane by Baldoni. All parties have denied the allegations against them.
DailyMail.com has contacted representatives for Baldoni and Lively for comment.
In the introduction and summary of their argument, Lively’s legal team argues the lawsuit against her has ‘no place in federal court’ due to legal protections against individuals who have spoken out about sexual harassment or filed legal claims.
Blake Lively has fired back against Justin Baldoni in a new filing seeking to dismiss his $400 million defamation lawsuit against her
‘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,’ the documents state.
‘The right to seek legal redress and the right of the press to report on it are sacred principles that are protected by multiple privileges, including the litigation and fair report privileges, which are absolute.
‘Moreover, by choosing to bring their claims under California law, the Wayfarer Parties have voluntarily subjected their entire lawsuit to the sexual harassment privilege in the recently enacted California Civil Code Section 47.1 (“Section 47.1”), which bars retaliatory lawsuits based on public disclosures of sexual harassment and related allegations, including disclosures to the press.’
Section 47.1 dictates that individuals with sexual harassment claims who prevail in a defamation lawsuit against them over the allegations will be awarded their attorney’s fees, punitive damages, and treble damages (an award three times what the jury decides to give the plaintiff). The law applies to those who had a ‘reasonable basis to file a complaint’ of harassment and similar allegations, whether or not the complaint was filed.
The documents note that the ‘Wayfarer Parties’ – Baldoni’s studio – will be responsible for all of this should the defamation lawsuit be dismissed.
‘On top of that, Section 47.1 contains a mandatory fee shifting provision that will require the Wayfarer Parties to pay not only Ms. Lively’s attorneys’ fees, but also treble damages and punitive damages if and when their defamation lawsuit is dismissed. In other words, in an epic self-own, the Wayfarer Parties have created more liability for themselves by their malicious efforts to sue Ms. Lively “into oblivion.”’
With this fee shifting provision in mind, the documents note that Steve Sarowitz, the co-founder of Wayferer Studios, may end up forking over the $100 million he allegedly pledged to spend on litigation in a manner he did not intend.
‘Steve Sarowitz may indeed make good on his threat to spend “$100 million” litigating against Ms. Lively, but perhaps not in the way he planned.’
Lively’s lawyers, Matt Gottlieb and Esra Hudson, said in a statement obtained by DailyMail.com: ‘This lawsuit is a profound abuse of the legal process that has no place in federal court. California law now expressly prohibits suing victims who make the decision to speak out against sexual harassment or retaliation, whether in a lawsuit or in the press.
In court documents obtained by DailyMail.com, Lively’s attorneys slammed Baldoni’s ‘vengeful and rambling’ lawsuit as a ‘profound abuse of the legal process that has no place in federal court’
‘This meritless and retaliatory lawsuit runs head first into three legal obstacles, including the litigation, fair report, and sexual harassment privileges, the latter of which contains a mandatory fee shifting provision that will require the likes of billionaire Steve Sarowitz, Wayfarer Studios, and others that brought frivolous defamation claims against Ms. Lively to pay damages. In other words, in an epic self-own, the Wayfarer Parties’ attempt to sue Ms. Lively “into oblivion” has only created more liability for them, and deservedly so, given what they have done.’
Her spokesperson also said in a statement: ‘The painful reality is that Ms. Lively is not alone in being sued for defamation after speaking up about being sexually harassed at work. That is entirely why California recently enacted AB 933, the Privileged Communications Incident of Sexual Assault, Harassment, or Discrimination Act, which codified California Civil Code Section 47.1.
‘While Ms. Lively has suffered greatly by speaking up and pursuing legal claims, it is important for other people to know that they have protections, and that there is a specific law that expressly protects them from being silenced or financially ruined by a defamation lawsuit because they had the courage to speak up.’
In the documents, Lively’s legal team argue she did not act with ‘actual malice’ when making her claims about Baldoni, ‘a public figure subject to the actual malice standard’.
They state Wayfarer’s First Amendment Complaint – shortened to ‘FAC’ in the legal documents – ‘confirms’ Lively reported her claims and sincerely believed them to be true.
It’s the latest update in the messy legal ordeal between Lively and Baldoni, which officially began in December 2024 with a legal complaint against Baldoni from Blake; Baldoni pictured 2024
‘Far from pleading “actual malice,” the FAC does the opposite: it confirms that Ms. Lively reported her sexual harassment allegations based upon incidents that the FAC acknowledges took place and that she genuinely believed her allegations were true. These admissions are fatal to the Wayfarer Parties’ defamation claims.’
The documents also said Wayfarer failed to demonstrate that Lively doubted the truthfulness of her allegations.
‘Here, the FAC alleges generally that the CRD Complaint’s allegations of sexual harassment and retaliation are false. The “falsehoods” identified by the Wayfarer Parties, however, center on hair-splitting Ms. Lively’s recounting of specific incidents within her Legal Complaints or, worse, attempt to justify the Wayfarer Parties’ behavior—essentially asserting that Ms. Lively “asked for it.”
‘Consequently, the FAC does nothing more than describe the exact same incidents from the Wayfarer Parties’ points of view. Whatever relevance this “both sides” approach may have out of court, here it only highlights the FAC’s total failure to allege that Ms. Lively ever doubted the truth of her own allegations.”
Additionally, it cites an alleged text conversation between Justin and his crisis publicist Melissa Nathan in which they agreed Lively truly believed she was right.
In the documents, Lively’s legal team argue she did not act with ‘actual malice’ when making her claims about Baldoni, ‘a public figure subject to the actual malice standard’
‘Most damning of all, the FAC references a text message between Mr. Baldoni and Ms. Nathan, in which both agree that Mr. Lively “genuinely believes she’s right and that all of this is unjust,”‘ the documents state.
The filing also says the FAC fails to demonstrate Lively and her team were all conspiring against Wayfarer.
‘The FAC falls woefully short of adequately pleading the existence of a conspiracy amongst the Lively Parties,’ the document states.
‘There are no facts alleged—none—that plausibly demonstrate that Ms. Lively and the Lively Parties had some “meeting of the minds” to commit wrongful acts intended to harm the Wayfarer Parties. It never happened. Realizing this, the FAC only alleges “[o]n information and belief” that Ms. Jones approached Ms. Lively “with an appealing offer” to purportedly “destroy” the Wayfarer Parties.
“That aside, Ms. Lively cannot share liability with any other “Lively Party” under a civil conspiracy theory because the FAC fails to adequately plead an underlying tort; as stated above, allegedly “coordinating with” The Times is not wrongful as a matter of law.”
