Blake Lively and her husband Ryan Reynolds told a federal judge on Thursday that they are looking to reject the Dimotation trial of Justin Baldoni.
The lawyers of the two parties are due in court on Monday for the first hearing on the Megafeud between the two co-stars “IT ends with us”.
Lively accused Baldoni, who was also the director of the film, of harassing her on the set, then retalling with a defamation campaign when she dared to talk about it.
Baldoni and his publicists replied that Lively differ them by leaving text messages out of his context and wandering badly from their interactions. Baldoni also alleges that Lively and Reynolds put pressure on WME to drop it as a customer, which WME denies.
The couple’s lawyers filed the opinion Thursday in accordance with the ordinance of judge Lewis Liman, who explained how the federal affair goes ahead. The judge asked for a letter which “will indicate in a sentence the accused’s intention of making a request for rejection”.
Liman will later establish a deadline to file the motion.
“The animated parties-Reynolds intend to move to reject the complaint of the complainants,” said Michael J. Gottlieb, following the judge’s investigation to keep him short and soft.
The Leslie Sloane advertising, which was also appointed defendant of the pursuit of Baldoni, filed a similar opinion on Wednesday.
The judge said he expected to plan a trial for March 2026 and asked the parties to file a plan that would allow a trial on this date.
In a rare moment, lawyers on both sides also indicated that they had no objection to consolidate the two federal cases in a single procedure.
During the hearing on Monday, the two parties should discuss the extrajudicial conduct of the Baldoni lawyer, Bryan Freedman. Lively lawyers have argued that Freedman made detrimental comments in the press, which they think are hindering the jury. Freedman at the end that he had the right to publicly defend his client against the Blitz of the Lively media.
On Thursday evening, the Baldoni team said they wanted to take the lively deposit as soon as possible. But they told the judge that the lawyers of Lively said that she would refuse to let Freedman make the deposition, due to “unpertified declarations made by Mr. Freedman”.
“We do not know any situation which would justify the registered part of having the choice in which the lawyer takes his deposition,” wrote Kevin Fritz, another Baldoni lawyer. “Parties to disputes simply do not have the right to dictate which lawyers of their opponents may or may not take their deposit or make another aspect of the case of the opposing party.”
Fritz wants this problem to be resolved at the hearing on Monday.
