Justin Baldoni’s Lawyer Cites ‘Heated Rivalry’ in Lawsuit Defense
Lawyers representing Justin Baldoni appeared in court recently to seek a dismissal of Blake Lively’s sexual harassment lawsuit. The case stems from claims made during the filming of their upcoming 2024 project, “It Ends With Us.” Lively’s lawsuit alleges instances of sexual harassment and retaliation. Baldoni’s legal team argues that the allegations derive from improvisational choices made during the filming of intimate scenes.
Arguments in Court
Baldoni’s attorney, Jonathan Bach, emphasized that improvisation during sexually charged scenes does not constitute gender-based harassment. During the hearing, he referenced the show “Heated Rivalry,” a gay romance series on HBO Max, to illustrate his point. He argued that if male actors improvised intimate scenes together, claims of gender discrimination would not arise.
Context and Consent
Bach pointed out that any physical interaction between Baldoni and Lively was rooted in their characters’ relationship and not due to Lively being a woman. He opened his argument by stating that Lively was aware that “It Ends With Us” would contain “hot and sexy scenes.” However, U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman questioned whether this sexual content gave Baldoni implicit permission to engage in any physical contact with Lively.
- Bach maintained that Lively’s complaints were inconsequential compared to the allegations being made.
- Judge Liman expressed skepticism regarding the idea that the nature of the film’s content could excuse Baldoni’s actions.
Lively’s Legal Team’s Position
Esra Hudson, representing Lively, highlighted that critical facts were disputed and warranted jury involvement. For example, there was conflicting testimony regarding an incident where executive producer Jamey Heath allegedly walked in on Lively in a compromising position. While Heath claimed he was invited in, Lively and her team disputed this account.
Hudson underscored that Lively experienced unwanted physical contact and argued that even with knowledge of required intimacy in scenes, consent remains essential. She clarified that improvisation must be discussed beforehand to ensure it is consensual. This includes conversations about potential touching, which can be formalized through nudity riders and intimacy coordinators.
Judge’s Insights
Judge Liman pressed Hudson on the nuances of consent relating to improvisation, suggesting that it might not be appropriate for every touch-related decision to be left for jury interpretation. Hudson contended that Lively’s reaction to certain interactions indicated her lack of consent. The case is set for trial in May, with the judge taking the arguments under advisement and potentially narrowing the allegations that a jury will address.
