Justin Baldoni's $400m countersuit dismissed in ongoing legal dispute

Is the judge saying Baldoni's claims are untrue, or that this case was never going to succeed?

“No, and the court was explicit about that.  

“The decision at this stage was not dealing with whether the allegations were true or false; it was mainly about the fact that Baldoni had not established the necessary elements to form a defamation claim in the US. For example, Baldoni must have been able to show that the statements were not ‘privileged’, which essentially gives immunity to those making allegations against another person in specific circumstances, and that Lively was at fault for publishing the statements that Baldoni was concerned about.  

“Statements made in court papers are generally protected by privilege, so Lively was shielded from liability in respect of the statements she had made in her legal claim against Baldoni. For the other statements, Baldoni was not able to show that Lively was at fault. So, the Court dismissed his claim.

“In terms of Baldoni’s claim against the New York Times, he needed to show that the statements were published with “actual malice” – i.e. the NYT knew the statements were false or were at least reckless as to whether they were true or false.

“The Judge determined that the evidence did not support a finding of actual malice, referring to the fact that the article contained context favouring Baldoni, acknowledged criticism of Lively’s promotional efforts, and prominently included Wayfarer’s denials.”

What are privileged documents and why are they relevant in this case?

“Privilege essentially protects those making allegations against another person in specific circumstances from liability. One of those circumstances is statements made in court papers.  

“In this case, Lively is protected from claims of defamation being made against her for the allegations she made about Baldoni in her legal claim against him.

“This enables individuals to bring legal proceedings against another party without the risk of being sued for defamation for doing so.  

“Where the statements she made in court documents would otherwise potentially be considered as defamatory if published in another forum - such as in the press or on social media - that is not the case for statements published in court documents or in any oral testimony she might give during the trial.”

The judge stated that Wayfarer parties alleged that Reynolds, his publicist and the New York Times made additional statements accusing Baldoni of sexual misconduct. How does this relate to defamation?

“Unlike in the UK where the burden of proof would have rested on Reynolds and Sloane to show that that the allegations they had made are substantially true, in the US the burden is reversed so that Baldoni would have had to show that those allegations were false.

“The Judge here found that Reynolds and Sloane made what they thought were true statements about Baldoni’s sexual harassment.”

What are the chances of Baldoni filing an amended complaint and what could he include in his case?

“Baldoni now has until 23 June to amend his complaint.  If he does so, the trial will focus on much narrower issues than the case has been dealing with to date.  

“Whether he will do so remains to be seen, but given the time, expense, and publicity this case has generated to date, and what is likely being seen by the public as a win for Lively’s side following Monday’s decision, you would think he would want some sort of vindication for this very public dispute.”

‍

An extract of Jessica's comments was published in MailOnline, 10 June 2025, and can be found here.