From the outside, there doesn’t seem to be much going on when you walk past the federal courthouse on Pearl Street in lower Manhattan on a late April morning. It’s an institutional, drab edifice that handles the most heated disputes in public life at the leisurely pace of a government office. The documents from one of the most talked-about celebrity disputes in recent memory are piling up inside.
The case of Blake Lively versus Justin Baldoni, which started with a New York Times article, a movie set in New Jersey, and accusations that turned a successful Hollywood collaboration into something much uglier, is set to go to trial in May, but it looks very different now than it did when it was filed.
Ten of the thirteen claims in Lively’s case were dismissed by District Judge Lewis Liman in a 152-page ruling at the beginning of April 2026. The charges of sexual harassment, which made news when the lawsuit was filed in December 2024, have been dropped. The defamation allegations are, too. Baldoni is no longer a defendant in the remaining counts.
The remaining three accusations are retaliation, breach of contract, and aiding and abetting in retaliation, which are now aimed at Wayfarer Studios and related parties instead of Baldoni. This decision could be interpreted as a major victory for Baldoni’s side. Given that the judge said that some of the defendants’ actions “at least arguably crossed the line,” it is also feasible to interpret it as something more nuanced.
| Category | Detail |
|---|---|
| Lawsuit Filed | December 2024 — Blake Lively filed against Justin Baldoni and Wayfarer Studios alleging sexual harassment and a coordinated smear campaign |
| Judge | District Judge Lewis J. Liman — U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York |
| April 2026 Ruling | 10 of 13 claims dismissed, including sexual harassment and defamation; Baldoni personally removed as a defendant from remaining claims |
| Remaining Claims | Breach of contract, retaliation, and aiding and abetting retaliation — proceeding against Wayfarer Studios and associated parties |
| Trial Date | May 18, 2026 — civil trial in New York; Blake Lively expected to testify |
| Baldoni Counter-Lawsuit | $400 million defamation suit filed January 2025 against Lively, Ryan Reynolds, and their publicist — dismissed by Judge Liman in June 2025 |
| Notable Evidence | Unsealed court documents include private texts, emails, and deposition excerpts; Sony Pictures executives privately criticised Lively’s conduct during production |
| Further Reference | Full case background at MassivelyOP and court filings tracked via CourtListener |
Following the decision, Lively’s legal team took care to present the rejected harassment claims as a procedural loss rather than a failure on the merits. Since the filming took place in New Jersey, the California harassment legislation that Lively had brought those claims under did not have the necessary jurisdictional footing.
A second obstacle to certain retaliation allegations was the fact that she was an independent contractor rather than an employee. Regardless of what actually transpired on set, these technical distinctions are important in complex litigation because they are real. Sigrid McCawley, Lively’s lawyer, told reporters that the trial would remain focused on the retribution campaign against her client’s reputation, which has always been at the heart of the case.
According to released court filings, Lively’s team claims Baldoni and Wayfarer conducted a planned public relations campaign against her employing crisis management experts, amiable journalists, and what one filing called “social media manipulation.”
The judge agreed with Baldoni’s side’s repeated argument that a production business has every right to hire crisis communications agencies in the event of accusations, but found sufficient evidence of the claimed particular behavior to allow those claims to go to trial. In May, a jury will have to decide what constitutes appropriate reputation management and what constitutes actionable retaliation.
Over the course of the last eighteen months, I’ve learned how rapidly a court issue may build up its own orbit of conflicting narratives. Despite officially endorsing Lively, unsealed emails showed that Sony Pictures officials were much less receptive in private; one reportedly described her behavior on set as quite unpleasant. Last June,
Baldoni’s $400 million countersuit was denied. Baldoni claimed that Lively and Ryan Reynolds had effectively “stolen” the movie by threatening to withhold promotion. For a brief period, the correspondence between Lively and Taylor Swift over Baldoni—which was mentioned in court documents—turned the entire situation into tabloid material. How much of this background noise will show up during the trial and how much will stay in the sealed record is yet unknown.
As the May 18 trial date draws near, there’s a sense that the case has been reduced to its most defendable elements, a more focused but possibly more legally sound claim on workplace retaliation in the entertainment sector. It is really unclear if that argument will hold up in court. It’s evident that both parties are determined to resolve this in court rather than make a settlement, and the decision will have far-reaching consequences that go far beyond two actors who stopped talking during a movie premiere.
