In a twist of Hollywood drama that has sent shockwaves through the entertainment industry, the ongoing legal battle between filmmaker Baldoni, actress Blake Lively, her husband Ryan Reynolds, and The New York Times has now escalated to a fever pitch. The saga has already captivated the media and is fueling intense public discussions, with new developments and accusations surfacing nearly every day. What started as a film production dispute involving Baldoni and Lively's movie It Ends With Us has grown into a sprawling legal and PR nightmare. This case, still ongoing, has introduced bombshells, including accusations of defamation, smears, and manipulative tactics.
On Friday night, Baldoni's legal team filed an amended, 224-page lawsuit that paints a picture of a conspiracy to damage his reputation. They also launched a website dedicated to hosting the lawsuit and an accompanying 168-page timeline of events. This isn't just about court filings; it's a full-on battle to control the narrative in a highly publicized case. Baldoni, who directed and co-starred with Lively in It Ends With Us, has taken legal action against Lively, Reynolds, and the Times, accusing them of conspiring to tarnish his reputation in retaliation for his involvement in the film's production.
Among the striking allegations, Baldoni's legal team has pointed to metadata on The New York Times' website as crucial evidence, suggesting that the paper had access to Lively’s civil rights complaint well before it was officially filed. Specifically, the metadata indicates that The Times may have had access to the complaint at least 11 days before its high-profile Dec. 21 report, titled “We Can Bury Anyone: Inside a Hollywood Smear Machine.” The article, which accused Baldoni and his publicists of attempting to destroy Lively’s reputation in apparent retaliation for her complaints of sexual harassment on set, made waves upon its release. Baldoni’s team claims that the Times’ handling of the story, including the publishing of Lively’s complaint, was a preemptive strike to malign him.
The metadata also raises further questions about the timeline of the story. Baldoni’s lawyers argue that The Times was working on the report as far back as October 31, well before they even reached out to Baldoni for a comment on Dec. 20, giving him a deadline of just 14 hours before the piece was posted. This timeline, they argue, suggests that the story was meticulously orchestrated and designed to harm Baldoni’s career. According to his attorneys, this was all a strategic move by Lively and her team to manipulate the press and public opinion. Bryan Freedman, Baldoni’s attorney, has been vocal in defending his client, claiming that the evidence strongly supports their case.
“This fresh evidence corroborates what we knew all along,” Freedman said in a statement. “That due to purely egotistical reasons, Ms. Lively and her entire team colluded for months to destroy reputations through a complex web of lies, false accusations, and the manipulation of illicitly received communications.” Freedman’s aggressive stance indicates that this case is about much more than defamation—it’s a fight for justice against what he sees as a calculated and malicious campaign designed to discredit his client.
In response to these allegations, The New York Times has firmly denied any wrongdoing. A spokesperson for the publication called the accusations "false" and pointed to an explanation of the metadata discrepancies, specifically the claim that the date "December 10" shown on the Lively civil rights complaint was not an indication of early access but rather an artifact of Google software. The Times argues that Baldoni's legal team is relying on faulty interpretations from amateur internet sleuths who misread the metadata. The response has only added fuel to the fire, with both sides now embroiled in a battle of credibility.
But the legal wrangling doesn't stop there. The amended lawsuit also includes bombshell allegations about Ryan Reynolds' portrayal of a character called Nicepool in Deadpool & Wolverine. According to Baldoni, Reynolds used the character to mock and "bully" him, calling out what he perceives as a deliberate attempt to harm his reputation. Baldoni alleges that Reynolds’ portrayal of Nicepool as a “vicious caricature of a woke feminist” was an attack on him, culminating in the character’s violent death at the hands of another character, Ladypool, voiced by none other than Blake Lively herself.
The lawsuit claims that Reynolds intentionally portrayed the character as a direct attack on Baldoni, mocking his persona and perhaps even his beliefs. The alleged scene in question, filmed in January 2024, comes on the heels of an alleged “ambush” at Lively and Reynolds’ apartment, during which Reynolds is said to have berated Baldoni and demanded an apology for actions he insists he didn’t commit. The timing of these events, Baldoni’s legal team argues, suggests that the Nicepool character was intended to be part of a broader strategy to humiliate and belittle him in the public eye.
While the drama on the screen is certainly intense, the real battle appears to be playing out in court and in the court of public opinion. The legal proceedings are set to reach a critical moment, with both sides due for their first hearing on federal lawsuits on Monday. Lively and Reynolds’ team are reportedly bracing for further revelations from Baldoni's side, which includes more documents and evidence uploaded to a website that is now accessible to the public. The court hearing promises to be a major step forward in what has already become a monumental legal and PR struggle.
At the heart of all of this is a complex and deeply personal conflict between powerful figures in Hollywood. While Lively and Reynolds have so far maintained a level of silence, other industry insiders are taking note of the extraordinary tactics being employed by both sides. The introduction of a website to host legal documents and the detailed timeline provided by Baldoni’s team shows just how much is at stake in this case. The stakes aren't just reputational but also financial, as the lawsuit claims damages for what Baldoni asserts is the deliberate destruction of his career and public image.
Meanwhile, Lively's team has expressed concern over Baldoni’s aggressive PR campaign, asking the court to prevent further publicity efforts that could prejudice the jury pool. It’s clear that both sides are not only fighting in court but are also trying to sway public opinion in their favor. This dynamic has made the case even more compelling, as fans, media outlets, and legal analysts alike dissect every new development for clues about the truth behind the allegations.
As the legal battles continue, the drama surrounding Baldoni, Lively, Reynolds, and The New York Times shows no sign of slowing down. What began as a seemingly isolated dispute over a movie project has snowballed into an epic legal clash with far-reaching consequences. The next few weeks will undoubtedly bring even more shocking revelations and, as both sides dig in for a long legal war, the public will be watching closely to see who comes out on top in this Hollywood showdown.
In the end, this case is a stark reminder of the complexities of fame, power, and the media in the modern age. When celebrities and media outlets go head-to-head, the lines between personal vendettas and professional rivalries can blur, creating a volatile mix that’s ripe for drama. Whether it’s in the courtroom or on the screen, the world will be paying attention to how this epic legal battle unfolds.
Login