A day after a federal judge stripped away most of Blake Lively’s lawsuit against director , the actress’s legal team has come out swinging — accusing Baldoni’s camp of crowing over what they call a hollow victory built on legal technicalities.
Blake Lively’s lawyers fire back as Baldoni’s side celebrates
U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman threw out 10 of the 13 claims in Lively’s lawsuit on Thursday, leaving only three claims — , aiding and abetting retaliation, and breach of contract — which will now proceed to trial. Notably, Baldoni is not a defendant in any of the remaining claims
Baldoni’s lead attorney, Bryan Freedman, was quick to frame the ruling as a decisive win for his client. Lively’s camp, however, was equally quick to disagree.
Michael Gottlieb, one of Lively’s lawyers, told American entertainment outlet TMZ that he was not surprised Freedman was celebrating — though he made little effort to conceal his contempt for the claim. Gottlieb pointedly noted that Freedman “had to bring in another law firm for the trial, and just last week was reprimanded by the court for having filed legally frivolous claims.”
Gottlieb went further, arguing that the judge’s ruling had in fact preserved what really matters. He said the court had stripped the case down to its essential truth — that Lively “spoke out against what she believed was sexual harassment on the set, and suffered retaliation that harmed her reputation as a result.”
He added that the court had found Lively provided sufficient evidence that she was victimised by the on-set conduct of Baldoni and producer Jamey Heath, and that Baldoni’s team “crossed the line in response and took steps that harmed her reputation and career.”
These retaliation claims, Gottlieb said, are the “beating heart” of Lively’s case — and the very reason she filed suit in the first place.
The reason the harassment claims were dismissed, he stressed, had nothing to do with whether the alleged conduct occurred. Lively’s lawyer Sigrid McCawley confirmed as much, saying: “Sexual harassment isn’t going forward not because the defendants did nothing wrong, but because the court determined was an independent contractor, not an employee.”
Gottlieb’s statement put the matter bluntly: “The Court’s ruling that Ms. Lively’s state and federal harassment claims could not go to trial was about legal issues rather than an endorsement of the defendants’ conduct. The court held that Ms. Lively’s sexual harassment claims could not go to a jury because Ms. Lively did not sign a contract, that she is an independent contractor instead of an employee, and that the offensive conduct occurred in instead of California. The fact that Bryan Freedman is claiming exoneration based on legal technicalities while facing trial next month tells you everything you need to know.”
Freedman, for his part, offered his own version of events. “Since the first day of this case, when Justin and the other defendants were blindsided by these allegations, the legal team on the ground from the beginning have worked extremely long days and nights defending this case through transparency by releasing the actual truthful text messages, and by welcoming and facilitating the release of all documents exhibiting the truth,” he said.
The legal dispute has its roots in December 2024, when Lively first filed a complaint with the California Civil Rights Department, accusing Baldoni of sexual harassment and retaliation. She then filed a federal lawsuit on 31 December of that year.
In her complaint, alleged that Baldoni and his production company Wayfarer Studios orchestrated a punitive smear campaign after she spoke out about the allegedly toxic work environment he had created on the set of their 2024 film It Ends With Us. She claimed the campaign caused her losses of roughly $161 million.
Baldoni filed a $400 million countersuit against Lively, her husband , and others, alleging extortion and defamation. A federal judge dismissed that suit.
Settlement talks between the two parties broke down in February, with Freedman confirming that attempts to reach a resolution had proved “unsuccessful.”
The remaining claims are scheduled to proceed to trial on 18 May 2026, in the Southern District of . McCawley said Lively “looks forward to testifying at trial and continuing to shine a light on this vicious form of online retaliation so that it becomes easier to detect and fight.”
Despite the significant narrowing of the case, the defendants have strongly denied any wrongdoing. Baldoni’s lawyers Alexandra Shapiro and Jonathan Bach said in a joint statement: “What’s left is a significantly narrowed case, and we look forward to presenting our defence to the remaining claims in court.”
For now, both sides insist they will prevail. The courtroom battle — which has drawn in everyone from to a former CIA official — shows no signs of quieting before it reaches a jury.
