7. Lively v. Baldoni: Subpoenas, Stakeholders, & Legal Strategy

On this episode of Reputation Nation, Anne Marie Malecha and Stacy Bratcher take you straight into the heart of the Lively v. Baldoni showdown, focusing on the role of subpoenas, the impact stakeholder interests have on legal decisions, and the strategy behind each move in this ongoing dispute. They break down how tactical filings and evidence gathering set the tone for both courtroom proceedings and public perception, and leave their listeners with practical insights for anyone navigating legal and PR challenges in high stakes situations.

Lively v. Baldoni: Subpoenas, Stakeholders, & Legal Strategy Transcript

Anne Marie (00:02)

Welcome to Reputation Nation, the podcast that goes beyond the headlines to unpack corporate crises, legal battles, and the strategies that shape reputations. I’m Anne Marie Malecha, the CEO of Dezenhall Resources and crisis management expert.

Stacy (00:16)

And I’m Stacy Bratcher, a lawyer who’s battled crises on the front page and in the courtroom. And sometimes those crises have led me into the foxhole with Anne Marie. Whether you’re in the C-suite, the legal department, or are just curious about controversy, we’ve got you covered. Let’s get started.

Anne Marie (00:37)

Today we’re going to examine the Blake Lively vs. Justin Baldoni legal and public relations battle. This case is more than a celebrity feud. It’s a case in how to use lawsuits as PR weapons, how public opinion influences outcomes, and how perception is everything. For those not familiar with this case, here’s a 30 second date of play. Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni co-starred in the movie adaptation of It Ends With Us, a story centered on domestic violence.

The film was released in August 2024 with Lively facing significant online backlash for what many deemed tone deaf marketing. In December 2024, Lively filed a sexual harassment complaint with the California Civil Rights Department against Baldoni and a separate retaliation lawsuit in New York. This was accompanied by a New York Times expose alleging that Baldoni orchestrated a smear campaign.

against Lively to tarnish her reputation. Baldoni quickly responded by filing a libel lawsuit against the New York Times on December 31st, followed by another lawsuit against Lively, her husband Ryan Reynolds, and other defendants, including PR people, accusing them of extortion, defamation, and other claims. Over recent months, the high stakes legal battle between Justin Baldoni and Blake Lively continued to intensify with a trial date set for March 2026.

Today we’re putting Stacy Bratcher, our very own legal strategist and powerhouse litigator in the spotlight. We’re unpacking legal strategy behind the Blake Lively versus Justin Baldoni case, the power plays, the calculated risks, and how litigation becomes a weapon in a reputational war.

When you file lawsuits in cases like the Baldoni Lively case, is there a strategy behind the types of claims that are included, the number of claims? Do you put everything in there? Do you take a more targeted approach? Can you explain when you’re thinking about the strategic framing of a case on the legal side, what goes into that and sort of why maybe they made some of the choices they did here?

Stacy (02:43)

At the baseline, you need to make sure that you have facts and evidence to support claims. So that is sort of like table stakes. Lawyers have ethical duties to make sure that they are making true and accurate representations to the court. you know, whether and how many of those claims you can come up with is another story. I think one thing that is a strategic decision is the ordering of claims. You know, the complaint tells a story about what happened and the best complaints are really captivating. And so as you reveal the facts, as you address your claims, you should be thoughtful about which ones, what order. know, to the point of the kitchen sink complaint, because you can, especially here in California, you can come up with any number of different complaints. There’s many laws that people violate, but that’s not always successful. You know, that strategy can undermine your credibility with the court and with the public. So I absolutely think it’s a strategic decision, but the facts and evidence have to support it.

Anne Marie (03:46)

To that end, in the drafting process of the complaint, I assume you think about the audience in some ways as well, which on the court of public opinion side is sort of first line of thinking for us. Obviously you have to make sure it’s legal and it has the merits to stand up, but how much credence is given to a potential judge or a jury or the jurisdiction in which you’re filing the suit as you put the claims together?

Stacy (04:12)

Well, mean, the court is obvious for lawyers is your first audience. And I think that’s, Anne Marie, when we talk about, the relationship with comms and legal, that is one of those key tension points, the friction points, because the lawyers were officers of the court. want to make sure we have credible claims that we can support. And so for lawyers, typically the court is your first audience. And so you want to make sure you pass, you know, what they tell you in law school is the red face test. And from an in-house perspective, you think about your investors, you think about your board, your consumers, you think about if you’re a regulated company, you know, what do the regulators care about, because how you frame the claims you choose can have business implications as well. And so being very thoughtful about the claims that you bring and sort of the collateral impacts that a lawsuit can have on your business is really important.

Anne Marie (05:08)

The stakeholder matrix that you just explained is exactly where a lot of our work really comes together. Something that impacts an investor positively could negatively impact a regulator and vice versa. That’s where picking the best of bad options becomes very, very “fun” in these cases.

I want to talk about named parties in cases. So in Baldoni’s defamation suit, he names Lively and Ryan Reynolds. From a legal perspective, is that smart targeting to bring Ryan Reynolds into the fold or does that risk over reaching and diluting the focus of his defense.

Stacy (05:41)

I’m sure it was a very strategic decision. And I’m sure that team spent a lot of time talking about that. And I got to tell you, and I’m sure we agree here that looking at this whole mess, you know, it’s clear there’s emotions on both sides. And so it’s really hard to determine whether decisions were made strategically or because people had big feelings. ⁓ One of the things I note about Ryan Reynolds is that he’s really rich. And he has a lot of different businesses. I think it might have opened up more avenues for Baldoni to seek assets and, and exert pressure. So, I think that maybe that’s what won out or it also, as you add other parties gives you more, more witnesses, more discovery to seek. So, you know, from that standpoint and Brian Freeman, I think is a pretty aggressive lawyer. that, that kind of rings true to me.

Anne Marie (06:34)

It makes a lot of sense. There’s been some other company names and entities that have come into focus. Blake Lively has a company called Vanzan that filed a lawsuit that’s since been withdrawn, but that was done in an effort to subpoena the allegedly incriminating text message from Baldoni’s now former PR team without Lively’s name being attached. What’s your take on this strategy as part of a way to construct their legal narrative and the next steps of this case?

Stacy (07:04)

You know, it’s been maligned a little bit in the press, you know, the Daily Mail, I think called it shady or a sham. And I got to say, I think it was a really strategic move. I’ve done it myself in other cases, you know, she must, I presume that they had a kernel, they saw some evidence somewhere, either because the Jones folks, you know, leaked it or they just came across a piece of evidence and the best way to get the receipts is through a subpoena process. That is a court ordered process. Folks have to respond. So I think it was a really good move.

I mean, otherwise, you know, I think that it potentially compromised the Jones firm in their relationship with Baldoni and Wayfair. And, you know, you have the shield of a court process to respond. So I think it was a really smart strategic move on the lively team.

Anne Marie (07:57)

And I think the way the press is framing it now makes it very clear where that was pitched from. And I can see why they’re doing it as well. But I think we always think about what intelligence exists before you make a filing, before you get to the front end of a case where the public is going to be involved. And whether you call that opposition research or intelligence gathering, you want to know what’s there. And I think it’s brilliant. And they obviously got some things that they thought were helpful to them.

Stacy (08:25)

And you know, it’s funny, you were absolutely right. Someone came forward with some information that framed these stories. so it’s interesting to me, you know, that Blake is really, the lively team is really sort of villainized here. Yet the Freeman team, when they put up the litigation website and leaked all text messages and footage, et cetera, that was seen as truth telling. You know, it’s just a very interesting how, ⁓ and you know, this is your world, how media and communications really shaped.

the characters in these cases.

Anne Marie (08:56)

It’s all perception and perception isn’t just based on the information you put out. It’s also based on the moment too. And I think there’s this inherent skepticism of the starting party these days. part of that’s from the political atmosphere we find ourselves in. Part of it’s from this erosion of trust in quote legacy media. Some of it’s just people are bored and looking for a fight. ⁓ And you can’t necessarily gauge how something is going to be received. I think the sequencing of all of this is interesting. I also don’t think it’s a

an accident that the Vanzan suit information came out just ahead of the information about subpoenas being put forward to Hugh Jackman and Taylor Swift.

Stacy (09:36)

For sure. Nothing’s an accident. The other thing you mentioned legacy media. think the, you know, the YouTube culture that we have, the social media, the influencer, there’s such an importance on grabbing headlines and grabbing views that, you know, it just shapes the way these issues are framed because the sham shady, those are really attractive words that are going to get attention. so

I certainly look forward to your position on framing just in today’s new media world.

Anne Marie (10:07)

Unfortunately clickbait is…

is real. That term is incredibly legitimized in ways I wish was not the case, but no one reads an entire article anymore. And if you look at the way some of these more rag publications like Page Six and the Daily Mail put together their layout, you’ve got a huge headline, a small one or two sub line, then a big picture, and then there’s a little bit of text and then a bunch of ads and then another big picture and a little bit of text. So you’re really not getting a story and frankly, nobody wants to read that. Something

that we see in crises all the time is that people repost things that they didn’t watch the entire video of or read the entire article. And so then they end up attaching themselves to something that is different than what the headline is. So the headline really is what matters. And I’m sure that’s what the PR teams on both sides are really driving for.

Stacy (10:56)

Well, and that so that drives public opinion, right? TBD, how that affects the outcome. I really think that that’s going to be interesting to watch here because I think more it’s such a poignant case of all of these external forces driving.

the framing and narrative around dispute and courts. don’t know if trust is eroded in the courts. You would probably know better than me actually, but you know, courts are the place you’re supposed to go to hear the evidence and have a fair and final result. And so it’ll be interesting on whether the jurors, if I mean, if they’re ever in paneled and the judge, cetera, makes decisions based on kind of how the public framing has come out.

Anne Marie (11:42)

At Reputation Nation, we’re not just here to comment on the headlines. We’re here to give you real, actionable insight. That’s why we close every series with our Fast Four, four key takeaways you can apply when it’s time to litigate and communicate.

Define the objective. Be clear on what a win looks like. Whether it’s a legal victory, reputational recovery, or public sympathy, without a clear goal, your strategy can become unfocused and counterproductive.

Stacy (12:09)

Understand the pitfalls. Before filing lawsuits or engaging in PR warfare, evaluate the risk thoroughly. Missteps in legal strategy or media manipulation can lead to backlash, loss of credibility, or unintended consequences.

Anne Marie (12:22)

Spin isn’t strategy. While sensational narratives may dominate headlines, real media relations requires transparency, consistency, and accountability. Avoid relying solely on leaks or selective storytelling to shape public opinion.

Stacy (12:36)

Balance legal and PR strategies. Collaboration between legal counsel and PR experts is essential to manage courtroom outcomes while protecting public image. A poorly coordinated approach can jeopardize both legal success and reputation recovery.

That’s it for this episode of Reputation Nation. Thanks for joining us. We hope you found this episode useful. Have a crisis you want to dissect on a future episode? Connect with us on LinkedIn or email us at RepNat@dezenhall.com.

Anne Marie (13:08)

Want to learn more about navigating a corporate crisis or high stakes lawfare situation, or want more hot takes from us? Subscribe to Des Reads and our take at Desenhall.com. And be sure to check out Stacy’s The Legal Department podcast for more legal insights at LegalDepartmentPod.com. Thanks for listening. See you next time in the Reputation Nation.

Reputation Nation is available on all podcast platforms!

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts

Listen on Amazon Music

Watch on YouTube