Trial preparations intensify as Justin Baldoni, Blake Lively face off

Attorneys for Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni were due back before U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman to lock down the mechanics of a trial that has become as much about reputation control as liability. The court was set to decide how long the case will run, whether witnesses will be sequestered and which experts and evidence the jury will be allowed to hear, with jury selection scheduled to begin May 18 and opening statements possible that same day.

The legal battlefield was narrowed sharply on April 2, when Liman dismissed 10 of Lively’s 13 claims, including her sexual harassment allegations, after finding she had sued under a California law even though the conduct at issue occurred elsewhere. Three claims survived: retaliation against Wayfarer Studios, breach of contract and aiding-and-abetting retaliation. Baldoni’s separate $400 million countersuit against Lively, her husband Ryan Reynolds and the couple’s publicist had already been dismissed last June.

That ruling changed the strategy for both sides. Baldoni’s team is now pressing to keep out claims about alleged comments he made on Lively’s weight during the making of It Ends With Us, arguing that the disputes no longer matter after the harassment counts were thrown out and that they would only inflame jurors. Lively’s lawyers say the remarks help show the context for her retaliation claims and the broader effort she says was aimed at damaging her reputation after she complained about conditions on set.

The jury questionnaire shows how carefully the court is trying to manage the case’s public shadow. Prospective jurors are being asked whether they can fairly consider allegations involving sexual harassment, discrimination and retaliation, and whether they know Taylor Swift, Ryan Reynolds and other celebrities who have been pulled into the orbit of the dispute. They are also being asked whether they have seen It Ends With Us or read Colleen Hoover’s novel, a sign that pretrial screening is aimed at separating public fascination from admissible evidence.

What began as a conflict over conduct on a film set has become a test of how litigation is fought in the age of online amplification, with each filing shaping not only the record for trial but the story told outside the courtroom. With the claims pared back and the evidence fight intensifying, the first real contest may be over what jurors are allowed to hear at all.