NEW YORK, March 4 (Reuters) - A judge on Tuesday
signaled he may dismiss the New York Times ( NYT ) as a
defendant in a $400 million defamation lawsuit where the actor
Justin Baldoni alleged the newspaper colluded with the actress
Blake Lively to smear him after she accused him of sexual
harassment.
U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman in Manhattan said the Times'
February 28 motion to be excused from the case offered
"substantial grounds for dismissal" and "a strong showing that
its motion to dismiss is likely to succeed on the merits."
Baldoni has denied sexually harassing Lively or engaging in
a smear campaign.
He and Lively have filed competing civil lawsuits stemming
from Lively's claim that Baldoni sexually harassed her while
filming the 2024 movie "It Ends With Us," which Baldoni also
directed. Lively's husband Ryan Reynolds is also a defendant in
Baldoni's lawsuit.
Lawyers for Baldoni and his production company Wayfarer
Studios did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Lively's and Reynolds' lawyers did not immediately respond to
similar requests.
Baldoni accused the Times of working behind the scenes with
Lively on a false and malicious narrative and becoming a
"conduit for her revenge," resulting in its December 21, 2024
article "'We Can Bury Anyone': Inside a Hollywood Smear
Machine."
In its dismissal motion, the Times said it engaged merely in
newsgathering and publishing the article, and that the
plaintiffs did not show it acted with actual malice.
The newspaper also said the sole alleged defamatory
statement in the article - that the plaintiffs orchestrated a
"smear campaign" in retaliation for Lively complaining about
sexual harassment - was protected opinion.
Liman also granted the Times' request to put discovery, or
the gathering of evidence, on hold pending a decision on its
motion to dismiss.
"We appreciate the court's decision today, which recognizes
the important First Amendment values at stake," Times
spokeswoman Danielle Rhoades Ha said in a statement. "The court
has stopped Mr. Baldoni from burdening The Times with discovery
requests in a case that should never have been brought."