On Thursday, Justin Baldouni’s lawyers responded to Blake Livley’s attempt to put a defamation lawsuit, on the pretext that the California law aimed at protecting the victims of harassment does not apply to “fabricated” calls for LVly.
Actress and director filed a $ 400 million lawsuit against Lively, his co -star, and her husband Reynolds in January, on the pretext that they started destroying his career and kidnapping his movie, “He ends up with us”, with wrong allegations of harassment of the group.
In a proposal to reject the lawsuit last month, the Lively team argued that its allegations – which were first filed in a complaint in California in the civil rights that were shared with the New York Times – protected with the privilege of litigation.
Lively’s lawyers also summoned the law of survivors from protection against the lawsuit that is moved, which is the law of 2023 that protects the accused of harassment from reprisal defamation allowances. The law provides immunity from the lawsuit and allows the defendant to claim the synchronization and damages of lawyers.
In response to this Thursday, a lawyer of the bliss indicated that protection applies only to the claims of harassment with a “reasonable basis” made “without malice”. They argue that they actually constitute allegations, and therefore the law does not apply.
“She visited her allegations of sexual harassment, either in bulk or exaggeration in good interactions (not harassment) in a concerted and malicious effort to control the film and then to restore its reputation after a series of marketing errors that were well luped.”
Brian Friedman, the main lawyer in Baldouni, said in a statement that the Levli team is trying to put a “dangerous precedent” using the law to undermine the right of the one in the prosecution under the first amendment.
“Mrs. Livly and her district from the Hollywood elite can prevent my customers from exercising their constitutional right to seek the court to purify their names from her wrong and harmful claims,” said Friedman. “This right is not only protected by the master and the road parties in this particular case, but all Americans in the future who have false accusations have imposed against them and seek relief from our judicial system.
The response also claims that the litigation concession does not apply because the vibrant pulsating submitted these allegations a long time before submitting a complaint of civil rights.
The Baldoni team is also cited an interview with a Lively at the Forbes Power Women’s Summit 2022 summit, which they argue with its claim that it intends to seize creative control of the film. In the interview, Lively stated that when she started as an actress, “I knew they just wanted me to look nice and stand on a small pink sticker where I am supposed to go and say what I was supposed to say.
“But I also knew that this was not a beneficiary for me – that I wanted to be part of telling stories. Sometimes I had really resolved people because they were like,” I just rented you to be an actor. ” So, for them, I think, sometimes this may have felt withdrawn because you love, you are trying to confirm yourself in something that we did not use for you. “
“This is exactly what happened in the” It ends with us. “
