Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni’s legal battle has intensified as Baldoni’s legal team seeks to keep The New York Times involved in the ongoing lawsuit. This latest development comes after a recent memorandum of law in opposition was filed in New York City, drawing attention to Baldoni’s allegations that the newspaper added credibility to what he claims are false accusations made by Lively against him.
The memorandum pointedly accuses The New York Times of overstepping journalistic boundaries. “A pietistic bastion of the media establishment, the NYT has long presumed itself beyond accountability,” the memo states. Baldoni’s team argues that the Times went beyond reporting on Lively’s California Civil Rights Department Complaint by endorsing its purportedly false narrative. They claim that the newspaper’s actions are not protected under the fair report privilege, accusing it of colluding with Lively to damage Baldoni’s reputation.
The article in question was published on December 21, 2024, under the headline “We Can Buy Anyone: Inside a Hollywood Smear Machine.” It delves into Lively’s claims that Baldoni participated in a smear campaign to sway social media sentiment against her. This isn’t an isolated incident, as The New York Times has been involved in their legal issues previously, having filed a motion to be removed from the lawsuit, arguing that it merely reported on events.
Lively’s team supports the Times’ position, with a spokesperson remarking that Baldoni’s lawsuit is “a shameless PR document.” They argue that for years Baldoni championed listening to women, yet when confronted with allegations against him, he allegedly resorted to aggressive tactics to suppress the accusations and those reporting them.
“In its motion to dismiss, the New York Times correctly calls out Justin Baldoni’s lawsuit for what it is: a shameless PR document that has no business in a court of law. For years, Baldoni urged men to listen to and believe women. But when a woman spoke out about his behavior, he and his billionaire backer Steve Sorowitz used a social media combat plan to scorch earth and try to ‘bury’ and ‘destroy’ her, along with the media who reports on it. These bullying tactics will not survive in court, and everyone should see their meritless claims for what they are,” the spokesperson added.
The significance of this case extends beyond the immediate parties, drawing attention to the broader implications for media accountability and the legal protections afforded to journalists. As the legal proceedings unfold, it’s crucial to consider the potential impacts on public discourse and the responsibility of media outlets when reporting on legal matters. The courtroom’s decisions could set precedents that influence future interactions between media, public figures, and allegations aired in the public domain. As this case develops, all eyes will be on how the court balances these complex issues.
