Legal teams for Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni are set to meet with a New York judge to finalize trial logistics, including juror screening and evidence rules.
Legal teams for Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni are headed back to court as a New York trial date approaches, with the dispute now moving into the details stage.
Both sides are scheduled to meet with U.S.. District Judge Lewis Liman in the Southern District of New York on Tuesday to work out key trial logistics. including how long the proceedings are expected to run. whether witnesses will be sequestered. and which experts and evidence each side may present.. With jury selection set to begin May 18. opening statements could follow the same day—meaning the next few days are less about argument and more about the framework that will shape what jurors ultimately hear.
A central feature of the case is how potential jurors will be screened.. The jury questionnaire includes a question aimed at testing whether prospective jurors can remain open-minded about allegations at the heart of the lawsuit.. Those allegations. as described in filings referenced in the court process. include sexual harassment. discrimination. and retaliation tied to work on the film “It Ends With Us.” The questionnaire asks whether the “nature of the allegations” would make it difficult for someone to consider the evidence fairly for both sides.
The screening also expands beyond the legal theories to the realities of celebrity culture and public familiarity.. Prospective jurors will be asked whether they personally know Taylor Swift. Ryan Reynolds. and other celebrities. and whether they have seen the movie or read the book that the film is based on.. That combination—celebrity adjacency plus mainstream attention to the underlying story—creates a practical challenge for courts: ensuring that jurors evaluate testimony and documents rather than reputations. fan assumptions. or headlines.
For Blake Lively. the lawsuit stems from a complaint she filed with the California Civil Rights Department in December 2024. accusing Baldoni of sexual harassment on the set of “It Ends With Us” and alleging that both Baldoni and his production company. Wayfarer Studios. engaged in a “social manipulation” campaign intended to damage her reputation.. The case later moved into New York. where both parties filed competing claims and counterclaims. pulling what started as workplace allegations into a broader battle over communications. influence. and legal strategy.
Justin Baldoni, through his attorney, has denied the allegations.. After Lively filed her lawsuit. Baldoni followed with a $400 million countersuit alleging extortion and defamation. claiming that Lively had “robbed” him of control over the film and destroyed his reputation.. Lively’s legal team denied those claims as well. describing Baldoni’s suit as part of what they characterized as an “abuser playbook.” The conflict has therefore not been a single-track dispute: the claims on each side are intertwined with counter-accusations about conduct. motive. and consequences.
The procedural history matters because it narrows what will actually be litigated.. A federal judge in New York dismissed Baldoni’s suit last June. with the counterclaim formally ending in October after Baldoni did not refile an amended complaint.. Separately, earlier this month Judge Liman dismissed much of Lively’s case, including claims tied to sexual harassment on set.. What remains. according to Liman’s ruling. includes certain retaliation claims involving Lively’s public relations team and alleged harm to her reputation.
In other words. juror questions about credibility and fairness will likely be paired with evidence rules designed to focus attention where the court has determined the case can proceed.. That’s the reason the Tuesday meeting is significant: witness sequestration and evidentiary boundaries can meaningfully change trial tone.. Sequestering witnesses. for example. can reduce the risk that later testimony is shaped—or appears to be shaped—by what earlier witnesses say.
The bigger public question surrounding high-profile litigation is how people separate media narratives from courtroom proof.. The juror questionnaire itself reflects that tension. acknowledging that the “subject matter” of the allegations and the surrounding celebrity ecosystem could affect how people perceive testimony.. For the public. the case is also a window into how modern legal disputes play out when personal and professional reputations are simultaneously at stake—and when disputes about “what happened” overlap with disputes about “what it means.”
The court also tried to end the conflict through a settlement effort earlier in the year.. In February. Lively and Baldoni spent about six hours in a New York City courtroom attempting to resolve the lawsuit. though that effort did not succeed.. That unsuccessful push underscores how these disputes can become locked into adversarial tracks—especially when each side views the other’s conduct not just as wrongdoing. but as an extension of a broader campaign.
As jury selection approaches. the parties’ focus is likely to turn toward what the court will allow and what jurors will be able to consider.. Whether the outcome is a verdict or a renewed settlement attempt. the trial’s structure—what jurors are asked. what evidence is permitted. and which claims survive—will play a decisive role in shaping how the legal system evaluates competing accounts.
From a national perspective. the trial may also land in a familiar cultural space: workplace behavior claims and retaliation theories are drawing sustained attention across politics and society. and audiences increasingly expect accountability from institutions and individuals.. But the courtroom does not operate on expectations—it operates on evidence. and on whether jurors can do the work the questionnaire is designed to test.