Justin Baldoni SLAMS Blake Lively’s ‘co-conspirator’ Ryan Reynolds in response to couple’s shock legal move

Justin Baldoni issued a scathing response to Blake Lively‘s husband Ryan Reynolds after the couple filed to dismiss his $400 million defamation lawsuit against them.

Baldoni has been locked in a bitter legal war with Lively and Reynolds since December 2024 after the actress accused him of sexual harassment on set of their film It Ends With Us.

She went on to file a lawsuit against Baldoni, who she also accused of orchestrating a ‘retaliation campaign,’ and he responded by suing Lively, Reynolds and Lively’s publicist Leslie Sloane for defamation.

Baldoni also launched a $250 million libel lawsuit against the New York Times for its reporting on Lively’s allegations. All parties have denied the allegations against them.

Last month, Lively, Reynolds and Sloane filed to dismiss Baldoni’s ‘vengeful and rambling’ $400 million lawsuit.

In a fiery statement, Reynolds slammed Baldoni as ‘thin-skinned’ while describing himself as a ‘supportive spouse’ to Lively.

And on Tuesday, April 1, the legal team representing Baldoni and the Wayfarer Studios parties called Reynolds Lively’s ‘co-conspirator’ as they asked Judge Lewis J. Liman to deny the Deadpool star’s dismissal request.

According to PEOPLE, Baldoni’s lawyers claim in the legal docs that Reynolds ‘pretends that the Wayfarer Parties’ First Amended Complaint (the ‘FAC’) fails to set forth any basis for his liability and that he merely acted as a supportive spouse. Not so. The FAC specifically alleges ample facts to support the Wayfarer Parties’ claims against him, based on both his direct actions and his liability as a co-conspirator.’ 

They’ve also suggested that Reynolds should not be able to recover attorneys fees from Baldoni in the ‘extremely unlikely event’ that he is dismissed from the lawsuit. 

This comes after Lively’s attorneys stated in her March 20 dismissal filing that Wayfarer’s legal efforts against her could end up costing Baldoni’s team $100 million.

In an April 3 statement to DailyMail.com, a spokesperson for Reynolds responded to Baldoni’s latest legal move.

The spokesperson claimed that Baldoni and the Wayfarer Studios parties ‘finally realize the plain defects in their complaint,’ while calling the lawsuit ‘frivolous.’

They also told DailyMail.com that Reynolds will continue to standby his wife while reiterating Lively’s harassment and retaliation allegations.

‘They once again claim defamation without alleging who was defamed, what specifically was said, or how anyone suffered actual harm.

‘Unlike Mr. Baldoni, who built his brand pretending to be a man who is ‘confident enough to listen’ to the women in his life, Ryan Reynolds actually is that man and he will continue to support his wife as she stands up to the individuals who not only harassed her but then have retaliated against her.

‘Under New York law, California law, and indeed in every jurisdiction of the United States this lawsuit not only fails but may result in the Wayfarer Parties covering Ryan’s costs and attorneys’ fees for bringing such a frivolous case in the first place,’ the statement concluded.

Lively, Reynolds and Sloane filed to dismiss Baldoni’s defamation lawsuit on March 20. 

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’ as they asked for all claims against her to be dropped. 

In a shocking twist, the documents also state that Wayfarer’s legal efforts against Lively may end up costing Baldoni’s team $100 million due to a mandatory fee shifting provision in California Civil Code Section 47.1, which provides protections to individuals with claims of sexual harassment and similar allegations. 

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 for individuals who have spoken out about sexual harassment or filed legal claims.

‘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.’

Under the California law, communication by an individual making a claim – without malice – about sexual harassment and similar matters is considered privileged communication.

Section 47.1 dictates that these individuals 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 law was signed by California Governor Gavin Newsom after the #MeToo movement.

The documents note that the ‘Wayfarer Parties’ – Baldoni’s studio – will be financially 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.’

They said Wayferer’s First Amendment Complaint – shortened to ‘FAC’ in the legal documents – relied on ‘implausible conjecture and conspiracy theories’ to make their case about Lively.

‘In lieu of concrete facts, the FAC resorts to implausible conjecture and conspiracy theories to allege that Ms. Lively “falsified” her allegations. On the one hand, the Wayfarer Parties insist that Ms. Lively is an immensely powerful Hollywood superstar who, along with her influential husband, wielded power to steal creative control over the Film; but on the other hand, they claim she was so powerless that the only way she could have any power was by manufacturing sexual harassment allegations almost a year in advance in a Machiavellian long game.

‘These two concepts contradict each other and therefore cannot coexist. Even if these bizarre theories made sense, which they do not, the FAC offers no plausible facts to support the conclusory assertion that Ms. Lively ever subjectively doubted that any of the misconduct she alleged had occurred as she described it, including in the 17-point list that they signed, the disclosures made in the January 4th meeting, or her eventual legal complaints.

‘Indeed, despite its narrative fury against her, the FAC repeatedly and consistently includes facts that demonstrate Ms. Lively’s genuine, good faith belief that she was mistreated and her appropriate and private efforts to improve the situation for herself and others.’

Lively’s legal team called the FAC a ‘blunt public relations instrument’ intended to ‘bury’ and destroy’ Lively for speaking up about her claims.

‘In short, nothing in the FAC resembles an actionable legal claim. It is, instead, a blunt public relations instrument designed to further the Wayfarer Parties’ sinister campaign to “bury” and “destroy” Ms. Lively for speaking out about sexual harassment and retaliation. The Court should dismiss the FAC and—as required by California law—hold further proceedings to calculate an appropriate award of Ms. Lively’s attorneys’ fees, treble damages for the harm this meritless lawsuit has inflicted on her, and punitive damages against each of the Wayfarer Parties.’

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.

‘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 FAC ‘confirms’ Lively reported her claims and sincerely believed them to be true.

‘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.

‘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.’

It also adds that alleged coordination between Lively and The New York Times – whose article about Lively’s original complaint sparked a lawsuit from Baldoni – was ‘not wrongful as a matter of law.’

‘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.’

They also allege that their documents failed to ‘allege that Ms. Lively wrongfully interfered with any contract or economic relationship.’

This references Wayfarer and Baldoni being dropped by talent agency WME following the filing of Lively’s claims.

They state the documents lack evidence showing Lively did anything to destroy the relationship, and that the only ‘specific allegations’ were surrounding her husband, who allegedly referred to Baldoni a ‘sexual predator’ in conversation with a WME executive.

‘The only specific allegations tied to the alleged breakdown of the WME relationship is Mr. Reynolds’ alleged suggestion that “the agency was working with a ‘sexual predator’. . . and, at a later date, demanded the agent ‘drop’ Baldoni.”

The documents also hits back against Wayferer’s claims Lively extorted them.

‘The FAC does not identify a single “threat” consistent with this theory and, instead, demonstrates that Mr. Baldoni invited Ms. Lively into the creative process and to collaborate with him and showered her with praise and compliments for her efforts”

‘As a legal matter, although the Wayfarer Parties have admitted that their “civil extortion” claim is “based” on California’s criminal extortion statute, ECF No. 121 at 46, they cite no California state-court case holding that California’s criminal prohibition on extortion authorizes private civil claims. It does not. “

It adds: ‘Nowhere does the FAC allege that Ms. Lively “obtained” any “money” or property from the Wayfarer Parties, much less through a “wrongful threat of criminal or civil prosecution” made with “knowledge of the falsity of the claim.’

They also claim Wayferer did not state any damages related to their extortion claims.

‘The crux of the Wayfarer Parties’ extortion claim rests on a theory that Ms. Lively made “extortionate threats to go public with her baseless claims of sexual harassment.” This theory fails for several reasons. First, this theory relies entirely upon the same “injurious falsehoods” as defamation, and are thus impermissibly duplicative under Blatty and its progeny.

‘Second, because this theory is based upon Ms. Lively’s workplace sexual harassment complaints and litigation arising from the same, it is not actionable as a matter of law… . Finally, nowhere in the FAC do the Wayfarer Parties actually allege that Ms. Lively threatened to pursue litigation against them based on their misconduct or demanded any money or property in connection with such a threat. For each of these reasons, this theory fails.’

The lawsuit concluded by asking the court to ‘dismiss all claims against Ms. Lively with prejudice, deny leave to amend, and award Ms. Lively all relief sought.’

Baldoni and his company Wayfarer Studios filed the $400M lawsuit in January. His studio’s chief executive Jamey Heath, It Ends With Us Movie LLC, and publicists Melissa Nathan and Jennifer Abel were also listed as plaintiffs, according to NPR.

The legal fallout between Lively and Baldoni came after months of intense fan speculation of tension between the two during the promotion of the film, with the duo not posing together at the premiere and doing press separately.