Photo Credit: Getty Images
In a significant legal development, Justin Baldoni's high-stakes $250 million defamation lawsuit against The New York Times has been temporarily stopped by a federal judge. The decision, issued on March 4, marks a critical moment in a complex legal battle that emerged from controversial allegations surrounding the film "It Ends With Us."
Federal Judge Lewis J. Liman granted The New York Times' request to pause discovery proceedings, allowing the court to carefully review the newspaper's motion for dismissal. The judge's five-page order suggests minimal potential harm to Baldoni and his associated parties during this interim period. "The Wayfarer Parties are unlikely to be unfairly prejudiced by a stay while the Court decides the pending motion," Judge Liman wrote definitively.
The lawsuit stems from a December 2024 New York Times article detailing Blake Lively's accusations of sexual harassment against Baldoni during the movie's production. Lively filed a separate lawsuit against Baldoni, alleging inappropriate conduct and retaliation. Baldoni vehemently denied these allegations and subsequently sued the newspaper, claiming the article misrepresented communications and context.
A New York Times spokesperson emphasized the publication's commitment to journalistic integrity. "We did exactly what news organizations should do: we informed the public of the complaint she filed with the California Civil Rights Department," the statement read. The outlet maintains that its reporting was meticulously researched, based on thousands of pages of original documents, including text messages and emails.
The legal landscape grows more complex with Baldoni's additional $400 million defamation lawsuit against Lively, her husband Ryan Reynolds, and her publicist Leslie Sloane. Sloane has already filed a motion to remove herself from the proceedings, adding another layer of intrigue to the unfolding legal drama.
The New York Times appears confident in its position. "Mr. Baldoni's misbegotten campaign against The Times — questioning our ethics, attempting to discredit our reporting — will not silence us," the spokesperson declared. The judge's decision to pause the lawsuit seems to provide a temporary validation of the newspaper's stance.
Judge Liman's order notably highlighted the newspaper's prompt legal response, stating that The New York Times "filed the motion within 21 days of being served." This swift action potentially strengthens the publication's legal position and demonstrates a proactive approach to defending its reporting.
