🌟 Act 1: When Hollywood Romance Turns Courtroom Drama

Once the darling duo of It Ends With Us, Justin Baldoni and Blake Lively have erupted into a high‑profile court battle that’s turning Hollywood insiders—and the public—into a captive audience.

It all began in December 2024, when Lively filed a complaint via the California Civil Rights Department accusing Baldoni—who directed and co‑starred in the film—of sexual harassment, retaliation, and orchestrating a smear campaign through his studio and PR team (Wikipedia, Vox, Wikipedia). She claimed he entered her trailer uninvited, improvised unwanted kissing, discussed his sex life, and pressured her about her weight. The complaint, titled “We Can Bury Anyone: Inside a Hollywood Smear Machine,” was made public by The New York Times, pulling back the curtain on a storm brewing behind the scenes (Wikipedia).

In January 2025, Baldoni struck back, filing a staggering $400 million countersuit against Lively, Ryan Reynolds, and publicist Leslie Sloane, accusing them of defamation, extortion, and hijacking the film’s direction (Wikipedia). Baldoni also sued The New York Times for $250 million in libel, arguing the newspaper cherry‑picked communications to harm his reputation (Wikipedia).

By June 2025, a federal judge dismissed Baldoni’s countersuit—calling it baseless and noting that demands for workplace safety didn’t amount to extortion (The Times). But his defamation case against The New York Times continues, as does Lively’s original suit, slated for trial in March 2026 (Marie Claire UK).

🧨 Act 2: The Media Feud Escalates – Public Spectacles vs. Private Depositions

The courtroom drama has spilled into the court of public opinion, and nowhere has the tension been more pronounced than in the battle over deposition logistics.

Lively’s camp has requested her deposition—scheduled for July 17, 2025 in New York—take place at her attorney’s office, with a protective order ensuring confidentiality, and mandating an advance list of attendees to shield her from paparazzi and public spectacle (Cinemablend).

Baldoni’s team, led by attorney Bryan Freedman, slammed the request, accusing Lively of exploiting her celebrity to dictate deposition terms. They claim there’s no evidence of paparazzi risk, point out both lawyers’ offices are just a mile apart, and warn that “foot‑stomping” moves and celebrity privilege have “no place” in court .

Freedman even floated a bold counterproposal: host the deposition at Madison Square Garden, stream it or sell tickets, and donate proceeds to domestic abuse charities (Cinemablend). Sources say Lively’s team was incensed, labeling it a “public spectacle” unworthy of the gravity of sexual harassment allegations (Page Six).

🧩 Act 3: Spinning Narratives – Who’s Gaming the Media?

🔎 Lively’s Perspective

Lively’s team accuses Baldoni’s camp of orchestrating a smear campaign and leveraging media to diminish her credibility. They insist the deposition be handled like any other witness testimony, free from spectacle (Page Six).

She and her legal team recently slammed a motion, stating:

“This is a serious matter of sexual harassment and retaliation and it deserves to be treated as such” (People.com).

They argue Baldoni’s push for media events or spectator presence is an attempt to manufacture harassment and pressure her into a compromising appearance.

🎯 Baldoni’s Counterpunch

On the flip side, Baldoni’s lawyers are calling out Lively for trying to bend deposition norms. They’ve accused her of “using star power” to control how the deposition progresses (Page Six).

In their official filing, they wrote:

“Although Lively’s foot‑stomping and use of her celebrity status may have enabled her to seize control of the film … her counsel’s tantrum has no place in this Court.” (Page Six).

They’ve vowed to grill Lively under oath, using video tabs, emails, and texts to challenge her allegations (Page Six). The tone from Baldoni’s team: no mercy, no showbiz flair—just fact‑driven accountability.

⚖️ Act 4: Legal Stakes & Celebrity Fallout

This scuffle runs deeper than deposition locations—it touches on larger themes facing Hollywood.

🧵 1. Power Imbalance in Dispute

Lively stands by her claims of harassment, supported vocally by colleagues like Colleen Hoover, Amber Tamblyn, America Ferrera, and SAG‑AFTRA (Wikipedia). On the other hand, Baldoni insists he’s the victim of a media-driven smear.

💼 2. PR Warfare

PR strategy has played a giant role. Lively’s side condemned Baldoni’s crisis PR for allegedly planting negative stories and editing communications to tarnish her narrative . Baldoni counters by insisting Lively’s camp manipulated the narrative via New York Times reports .

💵 3. Publicity vs. Privacy

Baldoni’s Madison Square Garden theatrics were labeled by Lively as “manufactured shame,” while his camp accused her of hiding behind fear and fame (Fox News).

📅 4. Timeline Pressures

The case is racing toward a March 2026 trial, with July marking crucial discovery moments. Depositions and motions in the coming weeks will shape how prepared each side is when they stand before Judge Lewis Liman (ABC News).

🎥 Act 5: The Court of Public Opinion

This isn’t just a legal fight—it’s a media spectacle, complete with publicists, leaks, social media leaks, influencer gossip, TMZ hits—and even the rumor mill linking it to interpersonal politics (Ryan Reynolds, Taylor Swift, Candace Owens) .

💬 Social buzz:

One user quipped, “This feels like Revengers: Law & Order!”
Another wrote, “Is Blake staging a press event disguised as a deposition? #WILLYOUREFORREAL”

No side can ignore Twitter, Instagram, or TMZ—and both are weaponizing the narrative.

🚨 Act 6: What Happens Next?

July 17, 2025

– Lively’s deposition day arrives. Will it be private and controlled—or a circus?

Protective order motion

—if approved, limits attendees and media access; if denied, expect full circus mode.

Evidence emerges

—emails, text logs, video footage: these could make or break each side’s credibility.

Media leaks

—pre‑trial revelations could shape public sentiment and jury bias.

March 2026 trial

—hard cross‑examinations, emotional testimonies, reputational stakes—all culminate in dramatic courtroom fireworks.

🔚 Epilogue: Hollywood’s Consent Culture on Trial

This isn’t just about two actors—it’s a microcosm of shifting Hollywood dynamics: consent, power, accountability, and the media’s role in shaping narratives.

If Baldoni is right, Lively is using her celebrity like a shield. If Lively is right, Baldoni’s camp is orchestrating a relentless PR assault. Either way, this case could reshape how harassment claims and defamation suits involving public figures are handled—and who gets to control the story.

🌐 Final Verdict: The Media Drag-Out Continues

This media war between Baldoni and Lively has transcended typical celebrity feuds. It’s become a key battleground for debates around:

Privacy vs. transparency in courtroom discoveries
Celebrity privilege, and whether fame should grant legal leverage
The power of PR in shaping (or twisting) public perception
The serious stakes behind harassment claims—beyond headlines and hits

The frenzy surrounding deposition logistics, procedural motions, and leaked documents has fueled headlines. But the real test lies ahead—for both on‑record testimonies and public opinion.