Blake Lively filed an amended complaint against Justin Baldoni, her co-star in “It Ends With Us,” alleging that he made two other actresses uncomfortable on set, with their testimonies ready. This expands on her December lawsuit accusing Baldoni of sexual harassment and retaliatory defamation. The updated complaint includes a new defamation claim against Baldoni and associates, who deny the allegations, asserting they are part of a reputational smear. Lively’s legal team contends their evidence is substantial, while Baldoni’s lawyer dismisses the claims as unsupported hearsay. The ongoing legal conflict has drawn significant media attention and continues to evolve.
Actress Blake Lively submitted an amended complaint on Tuesday in her ongoing lawsuit against Justin Baldoni. She alleges that her co-star from “It Ends With Us” made two actresses on set feel “uncomfortable,” with both women prepared to testify regarding their experiences.
The complaint does not name the two women involved, but it builds upon a lawsuit that Ms. Lively filed in December, where she accused Mr. Baldoni—who directed the 2024 film—of sexual harassment and conducting a retaliation campaign against her. Additionally, the amended complaint introduces a new defamation claim against Mr. Baldoni and his associates.
Mr. Baldoni, co-founder of the production studio Wayfarer, has denied these allegations of misconduct. In a countersuit launched in January, he claimed that Ms. Lively and her husband, actor Ryan Reynolds, were attempting to damage his reputation and seize creative control of the film.
In May 2023, according to the amended complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Ms. Lively raised her concerns about inappropriate conduct from both Mr. Baldoni and Jamey Heath, the film’s lead producer, to a representative from Sony Pictures Entertainment, the film’s distributor.
During the following three days, another actress on set voiced her concerns regarding Mr. Baldoni to a Sony Pictures Entertainment representative and one of the film’s producers, as outlined in the complaint.
“Despite her substantial hesitance to speak out, that female cast member expressed her belief that the quality of the work on the film was being impacted by Mr. Baldoni’s behavior,” the complaint stated.
According to the complaint, Mr. Baldoni acknowledged the woman’s concerns in writing, assuring her that changes would be implemented.
The following month, the same actress confided in Ms. Lively that her concerns were escalating about conditions on set, admitting that she found it “difficult to talk to Mr. Baldoni,” the complaint detailed.
Another actress also shared with Ms. Lively that she felt “uncomfortable” on set, as documented in the complaint nearly a year before the editing of the film commenced.
Sony Pictures Entertainment has not provided an immediate comment regarding the situation.
Bryan Freedman, Mr. Baldoni’s lawyer, stated: “The underwhelming amended complaint is rife with insubstantial hearsay from unnamed individuals who are evidently no longer prepared to support her claims. ”
“As documents reveal the truth while people may mislead, the forthcoming depositions of those who initially endorsed Ms. Lively’s false allegations and others witnessing her behavior will bring clarity,” Mr. Freedman added. “What truly feels uncomfortable here is Ms. Lively’s absence of concrete evidence.”
Ms. Lively’s attorneys, Esra Hudson and Mike Gottlieb, countered that the amended complaint includes “significant contemporaneous evidence” to back Ms. Lively’s claims and asserted that she “was not alone” in raising these issues.
Alongside the new allegations from the actresses, the amended complaint included an updated defamation claim stating that Mr. Baldoni, Mr. Heath, and associates utilized media platforms “to confuse and overwhelm the public’s perception of Ms. Lively’s allegations, while fostering negative sentiment against her and her supporters who speak out against Mr. Baldoni.”
The complaint specified that statements from Mr. Freedman after the initial filing are both defamatory and retaliatory.
Additionally, the amended complaint included Jed Wallace and his public relations firm, Street Relations Inc., as defendants. Mr. Wallace was mentioned in the complaint Ms. Lively filed with the California Civil Rights Department on December 20, but he was not included in her original federal complaint submitted on December 31 in the Southern District of New York.
Mr. Wallace filed a defamation lawsuit against Ms. Lively in Texas federal court on February 4.
Charles Babcock, a lawyer representing Mr. Wallace and Street Relations, expressed disappointment that the claims were not pursued in Texas, noting, “They are especially disappointed that the case has been brought in New York where there are numerous other issues at play,” Mr. Babcock stated on Wednesday.
Since Ms. Lively’s initial allegations against Mr. Baldoni emerged in December, the two have been embroiled in a contentious legal battle.
Following the publication of Ms. Lively’s civil rights complaint by The New York Times and other media outlets, Mr. Baldoni filed a libel lawsuit against The Times, asserting the newspaper used Ms. Lively’s “unverified and self-serving narrative.”
The Times defended its reporting style as “meticulously and responsibly reported,” asserting their intention to “vigorously fight” the lawsuit.
After Ms. Lively initiated her lawsuit, Mr. Baldoni responded by filing a lawsuit in January against both Ms. Lively and Mr. Reynolds, alleging that they were using their celebrity status to “steal” the film from him.
Mr. Baldoni’s complaint was submitted to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, including the couple’s publicist, Leslie Sloane, and her PR firm, Vision PR, as additional defendants.
During the first public hearing of the lawsuits earlier this month, Judge Lewis J. Liman of the U.S. District Court in Manhattan instructed both parties’ lawyers to minimize their public comments. The highly publicized dispute led Judge Liman to note that court documents provided “the public plenty to feast upon.”