A Sit-Down With Blake Lively’s Lead Litigator

0:00Matt Belloni:This episode is brought to you by LinkedIn ads. Ever invest in something that seemed incredible at first, but didn't live up to the hype? Marketers know that feeling. They optimize for the numbers that look great, impressions, reach, and reacts. But when they don't show revenue, well, that's a not so great conversation with the CFO. LinkedIn has a word for that, bull spend. Instead, why not invest in what looks good to your CFO? LinkedIn ads generates the highest ROAS of all major ad networks. Reach the right buyers with LinkedIn ads. You can target by company, industry, job title, and more. So cut the bull spend.

0:37Matt Belloni:Advertise on LinkedIn, the network that works for you. Spend$250 on your first campaign on LinkedIn ads and get a$250 credit for the next one. Just go to linkedin.com slash the town. That's linkedin.com slash the town. Terms and conditions apply.

0:59Matt Belloni:This episode of The Town is brought to you by Starz's Outlander. Everything has led to this. The final chapter of the time-traveling drama and cultural phenomenon starring Sam Heughan and Catriona Balfe is only on Starz. Vogue declares Outlander one of television's greatest love stories, and the rap raves Balfe and Heughan have perfected this on-screen relationship. Industry voters can access all episodes at starsfyc.com. it is friday may 8th blake lively versus justin baldoni baldoni gate the so-called trial of the century the battle over it ends with us and the alleged sexual harassment and alleged smearing online and the alleged dark arts of hollywood publicists all of it was supposed to come to a head in a sensational trial later this month in manhattan until like nearly every case in entertainment litigation.

1:51Matt Belloni:It settled earlier this week. Or did it? It's complicated, actually. Yes, Blake Lively settled her lawsuit against Baldoni's production company, Wayfarer Studios. Remember, the judge had dismissed her harassment claims, but said she could sue for retaliation. But now Lively wants Baldoni and Wayfarer to cover her legal fees and pay damages for filing a quote-unquote retaliatory defamation lawsuit. The judge overseeing the case dismissed that defamation suit last year, And there's a relatively new law in California that was enacted during the Me Too era that allows, quote, prevailing defendants in defamation cases brought by alleged perpetrators to collect not only attorney's fees and costs, but also damages, both compensatory and punitive.

2:34Matt Belloni:That's potentially pretty valuable. At least that's according to Lively's lawyers. This is their quote. By agreeing to this settlement and waiving their right to appeal, Justin Baldoni and every individual defendant now face personal liability for abusing the legal system to silence and intimidate Ms. Lively. Baldoni's team obviously thinks differently on this matter. Their own statement said that Lively settled because she knew she would lose, that no money changed hands here. They're downplaying that remaining claim as a, quote, request for fees based on a very narrow issue. So who's right here?

3:08Matt Belloni:who actually won this battle, if anyone. I decided to ask Lively's lead lawyer to come on the show and debate it. Michael Gottlieb is a partner at the Wilkie Firm in LA, a First Amendment and crisis specialist. And for the past few years, he's been Blake Lively's lead litigator. We're gonna talk about the impact of this case, whether Blake regrets bringing it in the first place, which parts of it are still going, and ultimately, whether anyone will walk away a winner. From The Ringer and Puck, I'm Matt Bellany, and this is The Town.

3:41Matt Belloni:okay we are here with michael gottlieb attorney partner at wilkie in los angeles and the lead attorney for miss blake lively in the recently settled or not settled question mark case with justin baldoni welcome michael thanks for having me matt it's great to be here all right so we had brian friedman lawyer for the other side on uh probably about a year ago now to kind of lay out the case. Now we have the big settlement. You are able to come on the show and talk about it. I have many, many questions about this case because these statements that went out, you guys claim victory. You called it a resounding victory for your client.

4:23Matt Belloni:Brian called it a quote, total victory for Justin Baldoni. So one of you guys has to be wrong here. Give me your 30 second pitch for why your client won here? Because I understand no money changed hands during the settlement. So confirm that's accurate and then tell us why your client won. So let me tell you why our client is happy, ecstatic with this settlement. The reason that our client is happy with this settlement is because it gives her the power and the opportunity to pursue what we believe is her most potent and powerful claim in a way that is efficient, in a way that is final, in a way that the defendants have no appeal rights over, and in a way that cuts off most of the noise that would be surrounding this case and lets us get straight to the core issue of how the defendants retaliated against her, specifically the retaliatory lawsuit that they filed that called her a liar, that branded her a liar.

5:26Matt Belloni:This was for when she asserted the sexual harassment claim. He filed a defamation case against her saying that she was lying. And there is a specific law in California that says if you do that, it's designed to protect victims and people that may be afraid of coming forward. There's a law that says if you do that and there is a favorable outcome that you could be liable for pretty significant damages. That's what you're suing under, or that's what you're allowed to continue under. Not could be, shall be, shall be liable. And that's an important distinction. It's not one of these statutes where there's discretion for awarding the damages once the conditions are met.

6:04And we believe the conditions have essentially already been met. And what's important about that, Matt, is that they filed a$400 million defamation lawsuit against our client, against Ryan Reynolds, against Leslie Sloan. They claimed that all of this was a lie. It was all made up and they were going to prove it in court. They lost that. Their attorneys got sanctioned for bringing it. And now they're going to be held liable for compensatory damages, tripled, punitive damages and attorney's fees when we establish the elements of this 47.1.

6:35Matt Belloni:You hope. You were essentially settling for the opportunity to litigate further. And that's not a guarantee. I mean, you seem pretty confident, but others have expressed some skepticism about whether you guys are going to ultimately be victorious here. Well, all litigation is a bet. This is just a really - Well, of course, but you guys gave up a lot in settling. This is a really, really good bet, and they gave up everything. So they gave up the right to appeal that$400 million defamation judgment. Those claims are now gone, and they got nothing in return for it. And they have waived their right to appeal.

7:10And you know this because of your background. Appeal is one of the ways that defendants often frustrate plaintiffs' ability to collect on a judgment. It can drag out for years. You could be fighting a fight on and on and on. You could have difficulties collecting the judgment. And so instead of doing that, we now have a direct shot with no appellate rights. And this particular action involves all of the defendants. It doesn't just involve the three entities that were at issue in the Lively versus Wayfair litigation. It involves all of the individuals and all of the entities. And so there won't be any issue here in satisfying a judgment, and there won't be appeals to drag this out and delay it.

7:48It means speed. It means efficiency. It means that this is over much, much sooner than it would have been otherwise.

7:54Matt Belloni:So what are you hoping to get here? Give me a best case scenario dollar amount that you could collect and from who? So I want to step back from that because this lawsuit has never been principally about money for our client. It has been about accountability. It has been about shining a light on this underground smear machine that retaliated against her for raising claims of sexual harassment and retaliation and has harmed so many other people. And what you've seen since Blake stood up and brought this lawsuit is evidence coming out in our case that has led to information being used now in other litigations.

8:33The Nicholas case, the Amanda Ghost case, this underground smear machine has been exposed and people are now on notice that if they see, you know, if you see a MattBelanySucks.net website pop up, you're going to maybe have an idea of who might have put that website up.

8:50Matt Belloni:Oh, there are many, many candidates, including some of the litigants in your case. But but but but you know what? She spent tens of millions of dollars on this case. I mean, at one point there were what five law firms working on her behalf in this case. And her brand business is sort of in shambles. she is now arguably made herself and exposed herself in a way that she wouldn't have had to deal with had she not brought this case there has been an absolute streisand effect in this case you know i know you're going to say it's all worth it but you got to understand when reasonable people look at this case and say, why?

9:34Matt Belloni:Why did she initiate this case? So I don't actually think the data supports what you're saying. And what I mean by that is what the data supports, and this came out in expert reports in our case, is that the reaction to Ms. Lively bringing this lawsuit was positive. When that sentiment changed - Amongst who? Amongst her agents at William Morris? No, overwhelmingly in the public. And what that sentiment shows, and this is measurable, you know this, there's ways you can measure online sentiment. What it shows is that that began to shift after the Wayfair parties filed their defamation lawsuit. And they went out on a press tour branding her as a liar in the press.

10:13That's the importance of the 47-1. That's why we have focused on that claim. That's why we have focused on holding them accountable for bringing a frivolous, retaliatory, sham lawsuit. It was an improper lawsuit under California law. They'd been sanctioned for Rule 11 for bringing it, and it had this effect. That effect was what the California legislature sought to prohibit when it enacted Section 47.1. And so this is important not just for Ms. Lively. This is important for everyone else that law was intended to benefit because what people are supposed to be able to do, Matt, they're supposed to be able to file a complaint about what happens to them in the workplace with the administrative agency responsible for that without being afraid that some loudmouth lawyer is going to go out and file a nine-figure defamation lawsuit against them.

11:02That's why the California legislature passed the law. That's why we focused on the claim. That's why we're going to put our energies into enforcing it, holding them accountable, and collecting damages as a result of it.

11:12Matt Belloni:Okay. But you do have to at least think about whether there is some other strategy to rebuild a reputation than extended public litigation that costs tens of millions of dollars. That's what I think people look at this case from a business perspective and think. This was a circus. and you probably did not anticipate the level to which valdoni and his legal team would make this a circus but it became one and this trial had it happen would have been an even bigger circus so like the lesson from this case isn't it that you have to think really really hard before you initiate a case like this. If you are a major celebrity and you have brand businesses and a film career and you want that to be what people know about you, not the back and forth bombs being dropped.

12:16I think you got to wait and see what we accomplish in our 47.1 before you write the final chapter of that book. But what I would say, Matt, is I don't think it's an option to sit back and let people assassinate your character and reputation with untraceable digital smear campaigns. I think when you discover that somebody has done that to you, that bringing that to light and holding those people accountable is important. And I think that what Miss Lively's lawsuit has shown is that there actually is a way to do that. You can shine a light on it and that can have an effect on others. And like I said, if you have unlimited resources, for sure.

12:51Well, one of the reasons that, you know, Ms. Lively felt so compelled to stand up is that if they could do this to her, they could do it to anyone. And there are lots of people that don't have the resources to stand up and fight back. And that's one of the points of Section 47.1 on this law in California. The legislature recognized that most people don't have the ability to fight back against a large defamation lawsuit when it's brought by a large employer or somebody with a lot of money. And so the law is supposed to operate to protect against retaliatory lawsuits like this. Blake thought it was important to stand up for those principles.

13:28She still thinks it's important to stand up for those principles. That's why we've focused on this element of the claim. That's why we have moved to pursue this element of the claim. It is more powerful. It is faster. Like I said before, we think we've already met almost all of the tests in it. She just has to prove that she is a prevailing defendant in a defamation action. She's proved that. She has to prove that she made her complaints about sexual harassment and retaliation without malice. We think we've already proved that. We think they've essentially admitted to that in the statement that they've made when they've said her claims deserve to be heard.

14:02We think other parts of evidence in the case also bear that out. So there's not much left to do in this particular aspect of litigation except for quantify the damage that's been done to her. And I think that when that process unfolds, you're going to see a powerful tool of accountability that will shine a light for others that face this kind of problem.

14:22Matt Belloni:So procedurally, how does this continue? Are we looking at motions filed within the month? Like, can we find can we get a resolution by the end of the year? It's unknown. So we had a fully briefed motion. Both sides sent in papers on this. I think it was complete in September. and we in filing the settlement papers earlier this week asked the court for leave to essentially submit a brief that it lays out a process for this moving forward. So it may take a little bit of time for the court to sort out how it wants to handle the issue, how it wants to hear evidence. that the defendants may want. Anyway, there are certain posturing that may occur by the parties as to how procedurally this should work going forward.

15:14But certainly the court's going to take some more evidence on the quantification of damages. There may need to be a hearing. There may need to be some kind of a trial on this. Oh, no, another trial. Well, that is certainly a possibility in the 47-1, which is this is one of the problems with, you know, what happened earlier this week and jumping the gun and going out, you know, before the settlement had even gone onto the court's docket and going out and starting to talk about, you know, spinning the settlement in the misleading way.

15:42Matt Belloni:Well, you knew that was going to happen. Come on. I mean, the funniest part to me was that the settlement was announced the day of the Met Gala, just in time for Blake to attend the Met Gala. Was that strategic? I mean, both parties, that the date of the Met Gala is public information and both parties participated in the execution of the settlement agreement. So, I mean, yeah, well, but you guys have an interest in her. I want to ask the defendants that question. No, I would ask Blake that question because she's the one trying to build back her brand business. And the Met Gala is the most important fashion moment of the year.

16:15Yeah. She's focused on living her life and moving forward. She's not focused on the ins and outs of, you know, lawyer battles and statements in the press and things like that. I mean, she is happy about this settlement because it allows her to move forward, because it allows her to focus on this particular aspect of the case, which is so very important to her and to others. She's not getting lost in these back and forth details of lawyers trying to posture who won or lost the settlement. She's very happy with it. We don't begrudge the other side if they're happy with it also. But what I would want you to do is to really focus not on what the lawyers are saying, focus on what the parties said, focus on the party's joint statement.

17:00The parties released a joint statement. The parties said that Ms. Lively's claims deserve to be heard.

17:07Matt Belloni:I'm sure that was heavily negotiated. What does that even mean? I mean, it's so, like, both sides could use that to bolster their claim. You guys say it's an admission that something was wrong. They're saying it deserves to be heard, but it was ultimately never proven in court. But Matt, what deserves to be heard means, what it can't mean is that they were fabricated, right? It can't mean that they were holy lies. You can't simultaneously say this deserves to be heard and it's completely fabricated and damaging to people's reputations. It means that they are admitting, whether they like it or not, or whether their lawyer likes it or not, they're admitting that her concerns, her claims were made in good faith, that they were genuine, that they were reasonable.

17:47Even if they disagreed with them, even if they thought they didn't rise to certain legal levels, they're saying they weren't fabricated. And that's a very important statement. But more importantly, the parties in issuing this joint statement, this is very different from the garbage that you're hearing from one lawyer in particular.

18:03Matt Belloni:You can say Brian Friedman. That's OK. The parties asked everyone to move forward constructively with the respectful environment online. Parties, Justin Baldoni, Jamie Heath, Wayfair, Blake Lively, all asked for that. And that's what we're focused on. That's what Ms. Lively is focused on. Who is the client for you? How much was Ryan Reynolds involved in the strategy of this case? This is Blake Lively's case. This is Blake Lively's litigation. She is the plaintiff. Obviously, Ryan Reynolds got sued, right? I mean, they came in and sued him along with Blake Lively for$400 million. So there was a time when he was a party in the case that was, in our view, always frivolous.

18:45It was always designed to retaliate against Miss Lively by bringing her husband into the litigation, we think, in an unwarranted fashion. Their lawyers were sanctioned for some of the claims that they brought against Miss Lively and reprimanded for bringing those claims. Most of your audience may not know this, but that's not a typical thing that happens in federal litigation. so he was involved because they decided to file a improper retaliatory lawsuit to drag like glab was husband into the fight because they thought that would suit them for pr purposes that's why we filed the 47-1 that's why we filed motions for sanctions because this is not what you're supposed to do it's one thing to defend yourself it's another thing to go out and file improper retaliatory litigation that's designed to harass, that's designed to intimidate, that's designed to send a message to others that you better not make claims like this against me or else this is what will happen to you.

19:45Matt Belloni:Who is your sense of the decision makers on the Baldoni side? Because obviously he's got this very wealthy benefactor in Steve Sarowitz, who he's involved in a religion with and is a big backer in Wayfarer. Did you get the sense that this was kind of bigger than him, that there were others that were backing this litigation on the other side? I don't know that others were backing it. I mean, I know that Wayfarer Studios was the defendant that was the connective tissue between all these different individuals. Wayfarer Studios owned the movie, put out the movie, profited immensely from this wildly successful movie.

20:29Wayfair Studios reaped the profits from that. So that's the connective tissue between all of these individuals. I have no, unfortunately, I have no insights into who calls the shots over there. I mean, in the case, we heard testimony that Mr. Sarawitz was the money behind the operation and that Mr. Baldoni was the fame. But beyond that, I'm not sure I have anything for you. And who gets sequel rights? in this settlement? That's not an issue in this settlement. It's not at all. No, that's not an issue. So that was never an issue? That's never an issue. That's a figment of people's imaginations.

21:06Matt Belloni:Okay. Why were there five law firms working for Blake Lively? It was you guys, it was Sussman Goffrey, Boyce Schiller was involved, Manat, a couple other firms, I believe. Like, why did it take so many attorneys on this side? And is that$30 million on each side figure accurate that's been floating out there? I don't even know where that figure comes from. I mean, you've seen that. I think it was like a gossip page six thing. But I don't even pretend to know what other law firms' bills might look like. Look, you've seen the docket in this case. You've seen the number of filings that have had to have been made in this case.

21:49You have seen how much it has taken to get to this stage of the litigation, the number of filings, the number of motions. The other side had multiple law firms involved in this case representing either them or their indemnified witnesses. I mean, there's at least five law firms on their side of the case when you count the lawyers that represent the Wayfair parties that represented Jed Wallace and Street Relations, the lawyers that represented Katie Case and Breonna Koslow. So some of the third party witnesses. Steph Jones has Quinn Emanuel, one of the most expensive law firms in LA. There are many, many law firms involved on both sides of this case.

22:28And there are many law firms that are involved in some of the other cases that have been brought. The Amanda Ghost litigation that you mentioned, Stephanie Jones. So there is a lot of litigation, not just that has happened in our case, but in other cases related to this kind of group of people and entities that engage in this kind of digital and public relations work. What a mess. To uncover that requires a lot of work. It requires a lot of discovery. It requires filing motions to compel. We had to file more motions to compel in this case than I can count just to be able to recover documents and text messages that they refused to produce to us.

23:08We won, I think, most of those. I don't have the count in front of me. But that takes time. It takes energy.

23:13Matt Belloni:But a lot of your motions were dismissed. And I thought maybe that was why some of the firms were brought in because there was some frustration over the length, the circus nature of this, the kind of way certain motions were heard and decided. and you're saying that's not the case. No, that's not the case. So let's talk about what is still ongoing. Is that one of the ones that Brian asked you to ask me? No, I just wondered. Okay. He actually, he said he likes you. Oh, that's nice. Yeah. I don't know if you guys are going to be hanging out playing pickleball after this, but maybe someday. If I get the invitation, I'll let you know.