Justin Baldoni New York Times Libel Case Moved to New York - Jonesworks Moves to Dismiss Wayfarer and Abel Counter Claims
.jpg) |
| New York Skyline at Sunset |
Justin Baldoni's lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, seeking upward of $250 million in damages, has moved to U.S. District New York Southern court jurisdiction.
Baldoni's suit asserts that the Times article “relied almost entirely on Lively’s unverified and self-serving narrative, lifting it nearly verbatim while disregarding an abundance of evidence that contradicted her claims and exposed her true motives.”
Baldoni, the director and co-star of “It Ends With Us,” is suing for libel for a story it published about allegations made earlier that month by his co-star, Blake Lively, that she was sexually harassed and that Baldoni hired a crisis PR firm to coordinate a smear campaign against her.
The suit also accused the outlet of not providing enough time to Baldoni and his team to respond to Lively’s allegations ahead of the Dec. 21 story’s publication, alleging that they received roughly 14 hours to provide comment, only for the Times to publish nearly two hours earlier than promised.
The New York Times, in an emailed statement, stood firm on its reportage.
“Our story was meticulously and responsibly reported. It was based on a review of thousands of pages of original documents, including the text messages and emails that we quote accurately and at length in the article,” wrote Danielle Rhoades Ha, senior vice president of external communications for the Times. “... We published their full statement in response to the allegations in the article as well. We plan to vigorously defend against the lawsuit.”
Baldoni denied allegations that his team planted stories as part of a covert media campaign to harm Lively’s reputation, instead saying she cherry-picked and edited the text messages she used as evidence of a smear campaign.
In a text exchange, one of Baldoni’s publicists told a colleague “You really outdid yourself with this piece” when discussing a negative Daily Mail story about Lively. But Baldoni claimed that the prior conversation and an upside-down smiley-face emoji were left out of the quotes shared by Lively and the Times, which made it clear the publicists were being sarcastic about having any involvement in the article.
The actor argued in the complaint that he hired a crisis PR firm as a “protective measure” ahead of the film’s premiere, with a defense strategy focused only on correcting misinformation if it arose.
Throughout the lawsuit, Baldoni accused Lively of usurping creative control of the movie, including making her own costuming decisions, rewriting parts of the script, and replacing the film’s editors and composer. The suit includes a screenshot of an email from “It Ends With Us” producer Jamey Heath saying that he felt pressured to support Lively’s bid for a producers certification mark, a designation from the Producers Guild of America in film credits that identifies which producers performed most of the producing functions and decision-making.
“It Ends With Us” ended up becoming a box office hit, making around $350 million in theaters worldwide after it was released in August. But domestic violence survivors said the movie’s drama and promotional efforts eclipsed the film’s message.
Southern District of New York (Foley Square)
Case #: 1:25-cv-00449-LJL Wayfarer Studios LLC et al v. Lively et al
Baldoni, the director and co-star of “It Ends With Us,” is suing for libel for a story it published about allegations made earlier that month by his co-star, Blake Lively, that she was sexually harassed and that Baldoni hired a crisis PR firm to coordinate a smear campaign against her.
The suit also accused the outlet of not providing enough time to Baldoni and his team to respond to Lively’s allegations ahead of the Dec. 21 story’s publication, alleging that they received roughly 14 hours to provide comment, only for the Times to publish nearly two hours earlier than promised.
The New York Times, in an emailed statement, stood firm on its reportage.
“Our story was meticulously and responsibly reported. It was based on a review of thousands of pages of original documents, including the text messages and emails that we quote accurately and at length in the article,” wrote Danielle Rhoades Ha, senior vice president of external communications for the Times. “... We published their full statement in response to the allegations in the article as well. We plan to vigorously defend against the lawsuit.”
Baldoni denied allegations that his team planted stories as part of a covert media campaign to harm Lively’s reputation, instead saying she cherry-picked and edited the text messages she used as evidence of a smear campaign.
In a text exchange, one of Baldoni’s publicists told a colleague “You really outdid yourself with this piece” when discussing a negative Daily Mail story about Lively. But Baldoni claimed that the prior conversation and an upside-down smiley-face emoji were left out of the quotes shared by Lively and the Times, which made it clear the publicists were being sarcastic about having any involvement in the article.
The actor argued in the complaint that he hired a crisis PR firm as a “protective measure” ahead of the film’s premiere, with a defense strategy focused only on correcting misinformation if it arose.
Throughout the lawsuit, Baldoni accused Lively of usurping creative control of the movie, including making her own costuming decisions, rewriting parts of the script, and replacing the film’s editors and composer. The suit includes a screenshot of an email from “It Ends With Us” producer Jamey Heath saying that he felt pressured to support Lively’s bid for a producers certification mark, a designation from the Producers Guild of America in film credits that identifies which producers performed most of the producing functions and decision-making.
“It Ends With Us” ended up becoming a box office hit, making around $350 million in theaters worldwide after it was released in August. But domestic violence survivors said the movie’s drama and promotional efforts eclipsed the film’s message.
New Case Information
U.S. District CourtSouthern District of New York (Foley Square)
Case #: 1:25-cv-00449-LJL Wayfarer Studios LLC et al v. Lively et al
Case # : 1:24-cv-10049-LJL Lively v. Wayfarer Studios LLC et al
Case Summary (Original) Against NY Times
The Baldoni et. al. suit is based on the following allegations:(1) Libel
The Article purported to detail a “campaign” allegedly orchestrated by Plaintiffs to “tarnish” Lively. It did so chiefly through the selective disclosure of private communications allegedly exchanged between Plaintiffs. And The Times, without elaboration, dismisses this concern as baseless, treating Plaintiffs’ candid private discussions, which were never intended to see the light of day, as if it were a press release. In fact, as the Times should know from the voluminous confidential communications it apparently has obtained, Plaintiffs’ concerns were not baseless.
(2) False light invasion of privacy
The Times depicted Plaintiffs in a false, fictionalized, and sensationalized light in order to catalyze public opprobrium towards Plaintiffs, stir public discussion of the Article, and draw readers to the Times. The Times contacted Plaintiffs concerning the allegations "on the evening of Friday, December 20, 2024, providing them until the following morning to respond to extensive, highly inflammatory allegations based on curiously obtained, cherry-picked private communications of uncertain authenticity or accuracy."
Thereafter, Defendants published the Article two hours before their stated deadline, cutting off Plaintiffs’ ability to respond and as a direct and proximate result of the Plaintiffs have suffered general and special damages in an amount of not less than $250 million, including damage to Plaintiffs’ reputations and standing in the community, shame, mortification, hurt feelings, embarrassment, humiliation, damage to peace of mind, emotional distress, and injury in their occupations.
(3) Promissory Fraud is a type of fraud where one party makes a promise to do something without intending to fulfill it, leading the other party to rely on that promise and suffer harm as a result. It is considered a form of fraudulent inducement.
The Times intended for Plaintiffs to rely on their false promise, which Plaintiffs did, in fact, do to their detriment and as a direct and proximate result of the above-described conduct the Plaintiffs have been harmed.
(4) Breach of implied -in-fact contract - The Times breached the implied-in-fact contract by publishing the Article at 10:11 a.m. (EST), in direct violation of their express representation to Plaintiffs of noon publishing. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breach, the Plaintiffs were deprived of the benefits of the bargain in that they lost the opportunity to meaningfully assess and respond to a false, misleading, extremely inflammatory portrayal of their actions and character.
(3) Promissory Fraud is a type of fraud where one party makes a promise to do something without intending to fulfill it, leading the other party to rely on that promise and suffer harm as a result. It is considered a form of fraudulent inducement.
The Times intended for Plaintiffs to rely on their false promise, which Plaintiffs did, in fact, do to their detriment and as a direct and proximate result of the above-described conduct the Plaintiffs have been harmed.
(4) Breach of implied -in-fact contract - The Times breached the implied-in-fact contract by publishing the Article at 10:11 a.m. (EST), in direct violation of their express representation to Plaintiffs of noon publishing. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breach, the Plaintiffs were deprived of the benefits of the bargain in that they lost the opportunity to meaningfully assess and respond to a false, misleading, extremely inflammatory portrayal of their actions and character.
Changes
Now that the case has moved to New York False light is not an issue. New York only recognizes statutory rights of privacy and does not have a statutory right for claims of unreasonable publicity given to another’s private life, unreasonable intrusion upon seclusion or publicity that unreasonably places another in a false light. Additionally, New York does not recognize common law privacy rights for any claims including invasion of privacy, intrusion upon seclusion, public disclosure of private facts or false light.
Problems With Baldoni's Case
The grounds of economic loss for defamation against either Lively or the Times might be hampered by some of the losses resulting from other factors. For example, if the firing from William Morris Endeavor WME was from the bizarre movie end product and because Wayfarer Studios and Baldoni acted overall unprofessionally. WME no longer representing Baldoni because of his unprofessional behavior in his dealings with the movie and with Jonesworks, Nathan and Abel could have activated a morals clause that excuses the cancellation of his representation without the alleged harassment being a factor.
- The allegations of the Reynolds speaking to WME and its agents were unsubstantiated and unsupported by the evidence offered in the Exhibit A in the filing. No proof was attached and if one was only verbally informed, by whom?
Also, it appears that attempting to befriend the the Reynold's and consequentially their other prominent friends, lead Baldoni down a path of being the author of his own misery. Had professionalism kicked in at all, the initial allegations likely would have been dealt with by the following:
- When it was clear that the proposed friendship wasn't developing, maturely being more professional towards Lively's involvement in the film.
- Baldoni reported that he fired a first assistant director A.D. allegedly at the behest of Lively in yet another show of 'star-pleasing' being put ahead of the project itself and professionalism as an executive.
- Not getting involved with the intrigues of Nathan and Abel against Jonesworks.
- Not firing Stephanie Jones without cause after being employed for 4 years without incident.
- Wayfarer hiring another, more age appropriate actress as Lively was 10 years too old for the role.
- Putting the final product ahead of a dubious friendship with the Reynold's.
JONESWORKS SUIT
Case Information
U.S. District Court
Southern District of New York (Foley Square)
Case #: 1:25-cv-00779-LJL
Southern District of New York (Foley Square)
Case #: 1:25-cv-00779-LJL
Other Parties
The Agency Group
Breanna Butler Koslow is a Publicist at The Agency Group (TAG) PR, based in Los Angeles. Other representatives at The Agency Group (TAG) PR include Melissa Nathan, and Katie Case.Vision PR
Vision PR is a public relations firm involved with Wayfarer Studios, which is associated with Justin Baldoni. The conflict centers around allegations of defamation and extortion related to a lawsuit involving Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds against Baldoni.
CAUSES OF ACTION
(1) Breach of Contract – Abel Employment Agreement (Against Defendant Jennifer Abel)
Under the Abel Employment Agreement, Abel agreed, among other things, that:
- she would hold in strict confidence and trust for the sole benefit of Jonesworks all confidential and proprietary information, and that all business and plans made known to her while employed by Jonesworks are the permanent and exclusive property of Jonesworks;
- she would not use any Company proprietary information to solicit, induce, or attempt to solicit or induce, any business from any of the Company’s existing clients, employees, referral sources, or business contacts;
- during her employment and for six months following the date of any termination, she would not compete with Jonesworks, or engage in or participate in any business that is in direct competition in any manner whatsoever with Jonesworks and
- during the employment term, Jonesworks was entitled to her loyalty, including acting in the best interests of Jonesworks.
(2) Tortious Interference With Contract – Abel Employment Agreement (Against Defendants Melissa Nathan, Wayfarer and Justin Baldoni)
- she would hold in strict confidence and trust for the sole benefit of Jonesworks all confidential and proprietary information
- that all business and plans made known to her while employed by Jonesworks are the permanent and exclusive property of Jonesworks
(3) Breach of Contract – Wayfarer Agreement (Against Defendants Wayfarer Studios and Justin Baldoni)
- In May 2024, the Wayfarer Agreement automatically renewed. At no time in the required 90 days before the automatic renewal did either party provide notice of termination.
- Wayfarer and Baldoni agreed, among other things, that during the term of the contract, and for one year following its expiration or termination they would not solicit or attempt to solicit for employment any officer, employee or agent of Jonesworks.
- Wayfarer neither cancelled nor rescinded the contract so CPLR 3211 would not apply in terms of a dismissal of Jonesworks case.
(4) Tortious Interference With Contract – Wayfarer Agreement (Against Defendants Jennifer Abel and Melissa Nathan)
- Wayfarer and Baldoni to pay Jonesworks $25,000 per month, including from May 2024 through May 2025.
Wayfarer and Baldoni agreed that during the term of the contract, and for one year following its expiration or termination, they would not solicit or attempt to solicit for employment any Jonesworks employee.
Abel and Nathan were aware of the Wayfarer Agreement, and each induced, encouraged, and procured Wayfarer’s and Baldoni’s breach of the Wayfarer Agreement
Abel breached her duty of loyalty to Jonesworks through her actions as described in this complaint, including by, among other things:
- acting against the best interests of Jonesworks, including by working to undermine and damage Jones’ and Jonesworks’ business and reputation;
- accessing, using and taking for her own purposes and against the company’s interests Jonesworks’ propriety documents and information; and
- soliciting, inducing and encouraging Jonesworks employees and clients to terminate their relationships with Jonesworks.
(6) Breach of Fiduciary Duty is when a person in a position of trust, known as a fiduciary, fails to act in the best interests of the person or entity they owe that duty to, often resulting in harm or loss. This can involve actions like self-dealing or failing to disclose conflicts of interest. (Against Defendant Jennifer Abel)
Abel breached her fiduciary duties to Jonesworks through her actions as described in this complaint, including by, among other things:
- acting against the best interests of Jonesworks, including by working to undermine and damage Jones’ and Jonesworks’ business and reputation;
- accessing, using and taking for her own purposes and against the company’s interests Jonesworks’ propriety documents and information; and
- soliciting, inducing and encouraging Jonesworks employees and clients to terminate their relationships with Jonesworks.
(7) Defamation (Against Defendant Jennifer Abel)
- Abel asserting, among other things, that Jones had doctored and falsified text messages purporting to befrom Abel and was attempting to distribute them to third parties in order to harm Abel and paint Abel in a false light, was defamatory to Jones.
(8) Defamation (Against Defendants John Doe 1-10)
False statements were published on the Websites are defamatory per se in that they tended to cause harm to Jones’ and Jonesworks’ reputations and business interests, such as the article "Who's afraid of Stephanie Jones?" published by Katie Warren Senior Enterprise Reporter in the Business Insider on August 15th, 2024.
The Law
BREACH OF CONTRACT
In order to prove a breach of contract – that the other party did not do what is required by the contract – you must show:- A contract exists;
- You did everything you were supposed to do under the contract, or there is a legally recognized reason that excuses you from not doing everything you were supposed to do;
- The other party did not do everything that party was supposed to do under the contract;
- You suffered damages, or did not get what you were supposed to get, as a result of the breach of contract. For example, you lost money because the other party did not do what was required by the contract.
TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT
Under New York law, tortious interference with a contract occurs when a third party intentionally disrupts an existing contractual relationship between two parties, causing economic harm. To establish a claim, the plaintiff must prove the existence of a valid contract, the defendant's knowledge of that contract, intentional interference that caused a breach, and resulting damages.DEFAMATION
Defamation is the act of communicating false statements about a person that harm their reputation. It can occur through slander (spoken statements) or libel (written statements). To view Civil Practice Law and Rules - CVP Rule 3016 visit here.