Baldoni Attorney Bryan Freedman Responds to Blake Lively Team

Added: 2026-05-12

[00:00:00]Let's get into it with attorney at law Brian Freriedman.

[00:00:06]Brian, uh, there you go. You're Let's just put you up a little taller so I don't tower over you like Larry King used to do to all of his guests. No, no, no. Other way around. You're big Brian, not little Brian. There you go. Um, Brian, I listened to Mike Gotautle on the on the town with with Matt Belly and I I have to say it seems to me like I got this vibe there. They set a trap. They set a trap of like get get Beldon to agree to these words. Blake's claims deserved to be heard and then we can swoop right in and say, "Look, there it is. They're acknowledging that she made them originally in good faith, that she uh that her intentions were pure and, you know, not nefarious like I happen to think that they were. So, he's weaponizing that one line and they've completely shifted their strategy. They call you guys in a panic on a weekend and say, "We got to settle. We got to settle." Something tells me, "Okay, let's settle. It's better for everybody.

[00:01:17]this will be the best outcome. And then a few days later, haha, we got you. This is the real reason we wanted you to settle. Now we can go after you on this 47.1 statute, which doesn't allow you to defend yourself in the state of California, or at least not forcefully.

[00:01:36]That's a load.

[00:01:42]You tell me, Brian. I mean, what what what what what's going on?

[00:01:47]>> Well, I I I you know, I didn't listen to the the podcast in its entirety, but I I I think it's clear what's going on.

[00:01:58]I mean it, you know, sometimes it's it's it's difficult for people when they settle cases to, you know, when they sue for $300 million, they then claim their damages to be $150 million and then they settle a case where they don't um receive a dollar as part of the settlement.

[00:02:22]Um, you know, sometimes you have to try to word that in the best way you can possibly word it. The reality is, you know, whatever the 47.1 turns out to be, um, it's a feeshifting statute. That's the purpose of it. It was always existed in the case, um, as a result of the the facts and circumstances of the case. I mean, it's not something that was new.

[00:02:47]They would have been entitled to that whether or not >> we settled the case. So, it's it's a little bit of a a uh a mental gymnastic to be able to try to say that that's what we did this for, >> right? Like that this was always the thing. It's almost like, oh, no, no, this was always the thing. No, this was a how I characterized it moments ago was this is, you know, it was always about SH and then when it wasn't about SH, it was all always retaliation. retaliation and standing up for survivors. That's what this is about. This is not about money. This is about being a leader and standing up for those who have been affected like this in life of its martyrdom. The martyrdom approach and now it's all about 47.1 and this terrible it. This was always there, but it's it's nothing more than a legal loophole, right? And it's never been tested like it's such a new statute that are is there any precedent for it? Has it been used in any cases so far?

[00:03:51]>> No. I think there's a couple of district court cases that have have have ruled on it in some ways, but it's not necessarily legal legally binding precedent. Um I I you know I I I I think what you what you found since the beginning of the case right was was shifting narratives depending upon what the results of the case were and you know you had this narrative you know at one point about campaign and and the reality is like remember how the case started. The case started with a surprise article with less than 12 hours notice, you know, in the New York Times, um, which was meant to be a complete hit piece. Um, it was a, you know, a bombshell long article that, uh, Justin and the other defendants had had no time to even really respond to in a significant way. Um there were, you know, as we started to look into it and Justin was destroyed at that moment and um as were the other defendants and and that were in it. Jen Evil, Melissa, Nathan, Jamie Heath, Steve Sowitz, and and and as we started to look at it, we started to uncover text messages which which told the real story that were not um either looked at or or at least paid attention to by the New York Times. And the real story being that, you know, no, he didn't bust into anyone's trailer while they were breastfeeding. There was a an actual text message that said, you know, come into it was an invitation from Miss Lively to come into the trailer while she's pumping and they can go over lines and and and you know, whether it's destroy the dailies, whether it's I wasn't in talks with Sony and and and uh you know, while she's telling Brandon Scalar that she was, whether they're taking the position that they never said that they used bots where where Miss Lively clearly says in in a in a text message, they're using bots. I mean, over and over and over again, you find that that things that were said were inaccurate. They they didn't uh comport with the actual documents in the case. And that's why we put everything out there. I think it's unprecedented that that's happened before in legal cases where somebody's dumped everything and said, "Take a look yourself." I've never seen that before.

[00:06:23]But you you you put out the lawsuitininfo.com and it had all the receipts 178 or something pages of receipts and communications between And didn't you say you did that by the way with like 2 days before the like you you if you had done it two days later it would have been like disallowed or something or was >> Well, I I don't know that it was necessarily disallowed. I think the judge asked that we comport ourselves uh you know with you know the basic rules of professional you know responsibility when speaking to the press and and whatnot which is is you know is obviously a a reasonable position to take um and and I don't know the judge or the court appreciated that there was you know so much information being released to the public because generally it's not a good legal strategy to put all of your your cards on the table But you you you have to remember where Justin >> where he started this thing. He start when Blake Lively who everyone knows and sorry not everyone knows Justin Baldoni, right? This was his he's the underdog here. He's the unknown uh in in this whole thing. And all of a sudden this woman who has some amount of credibility and and capital built up with public audiences. She's very wellknown. She says these horrible things about someone that we and says not only that, but everything he stands for. This is who he purports himself to be. He's an absolute fraud. And all I mean everybody I mean the the the cast members were were like, "Oh yeah, this is horrible. We support you. We we're all trained in Hollywood to support the survivors." I mean, right away. I mean, we're you have to jump in you all. I mean, any sort of due process is it it's like it doesn't exist in this town. So, he had to do the lawsuitinfo.com put the receipts out there, but it wasn't enough. What the defamation suit was, which is why I don't know how it's all going to work out with 471. But Justin's countersuit $400 million also says you're not just defending yourself.

[00:08:29]you're outraged that this has been said about you and it strikes you to the core and to me that was even more significant and it was together the combo is like okay wait a minute I smell a rat here and that's what you know immediately started sinking Blake with the public so >> how can that not be allowed what is this California what are you doing >> well let's let's you know let's remember other things that happened in the case, you know, um and when you start to talk about, you know, what a a smear is or not, um the truth is is that these are, you know, that the documents that were being used were nothing other than videos that she's actually, you know, that that that Blake Lively was actually in those videos. She was actually speaking in those videos. Those those were the alleged videos that were going to be played that were part of, you know, somehow a a digital smear. And and the way this case started out, it's not like somebody came and and and and made a, you know, a public complaint and and all this stuff. What happened was there was this secret Vanzam lawsuit in New York State Court. I mean, everything was done in a secretive, sneaky, you know, way to make sure that he didn't get noticed, that he got the least amount of time to respond, that he couldn't defend himself. And and and that's why it was, you know, the the rare case where you had to put it all out there. You had to say, "This is who my guy is. You know, this is what he stands for." And if you go back and you look at the text messages, right, you won't see any text messages where this guy takes a shot in any way, a mean shot, a nasty shot at Blake Lively at all. And he wanted nothing but the best. The truth is, if you really read the text messages, he just wanted to be friends with Blake Lively.

[00:10:30]>> Yeah. I mean, I only wanted to be friends with Matt Lowour when I showed up as the new guy on the Today Show. I just wanted to be liked. I just wanted him to take me out for lunch. I didn't want him to kick me right in the groin.

[00:10:41]And th when you're the little guy in a scene, you just especially in this big business of Hollywood, you're you know, look, you're nervous about being at the table. She's the big person at the table. The active just that, you know, the idea that this director came in and decided I'm going to you kidding me? He wants no one has more invested in it going very well with Blake Lively and her being happy and the movie being a success. Well, some of those things did happen. Somehow they came out with a giant success, but you know, he has no interest. What would be this guy's interest in taking? It just doesn't add up. And I think a lot of people know that or certainly feel that. But God is talking about a sham. you know, this sham, defamatory, you know, retaliatory defamation suit that that you guys filed. But you mentioned Vanzam, a complete sham from the beginning. It's a shell. It's a shell lawsuit. It's a fake lawsuit designed to get a subpoena out to get the phone of Jennifer Abel so they can get all of her information. It was a complete sham. He'll have to answer to that. Brian, where does this all go? Is do we have a lawsuit happening? Is the original one back on or has that actually been settled now?

[00:11:59]And is this a new one that is going to involve Blake and Justin on the stand?

[00:12:06]>> I I I don't believe it's going to involve uh Blake Justin on the stand. As a matter of fact, I I I think that um there was a request for additional information to be filed. There was a and I believe there was an order that came out this morning. I I haven't viewed it myself. I've just heard about it that that uh where the court basically said I don't need any more information. So I believe that Judge Lyman, you know, has enough to rule on it um in and of itself. And um and and I don't think that it could should should call for another lawsuit or testimony or anything like that. Um I you know, federal judges are are really busy people. um our United States District courouses, you know, deal with people that are locked up in places like Guantano Bay and and and and dealing with billionary powers of courts and and real, you know, you know, whether whether presidents have right to, you know, to declare war like like real significant issues for, you know, that that they're busy with. And I'm sure Judge Lyman had his docket is full of cases that have real significance. So, um, >> is this one still on the docket?

[00:13:24]>> I'm sorry.

[00:13:25]>> This one's still on the docket. The original lawsuit is still on the docket, right?

[00:13:29]>> Yeah. Yes.

[00:13:30]>> So, as of now, a week from today, this lawsuit goes forward until the statement which we all read now has an agreement to back it up. It may have been it it may the trial may have been uh taken off the docket, but the case is not finished until I think Judge Lyman is going to is going to issue some rulings and then decide what to do procedurally with some of the other things that remain. But but like I I I think that you know kind of this this idea that people are going around saying I'm the winner. I'm the winner is somewhat fictitious. I mean it's really like just real simple. She sued for $300 million.

[00:14:12]She said her damages were 150 million, right? She got rid of her emotional distress damages at some point and she walked away from the case, you know, not getting anything other than what she already had, which was this 47.1 motion that existed. So, I I'm not really sure how that's a win. Um, but if it's a win, I'd love to see what a loss looks like.