Show summary Hide summary
- Defense cites TV series to question the harassment claim
- How the defense framed consent and context
- Prosecution counters: consent, boundaries, and Lively’s account
- The specific allegations in the lawsuit
- Footage released and the defense response
- Judge’s pushback and legal context
- Industry example used by defense and cast comments
- What the court heard about professional conduct
In a Manhattan courtroom drama that has drawn wide attention, Justin Baldoni’s legal team tried a surprising tactic Thursday. They pointed to a steamy TV romance to argue that improvisation and intimate choreography on screen make the accusations against Baldoni complicated.
Defense cites TV series to question the harassment claim
Baldoni’s attorney, Jonathan Bach, told the judge that a recent queer hockey romance series known for explicit improvised love scenes illustrates industry practice. He suggested the series shows male performers often ad-lib during intimate moments.
Arkansas’ Darius Acuff Jr. earns rare Kyrie Irving comp from Bill Simmons
Sean Penn awarded Oscar forged from war-damaged Ukrainian train: he skipped the ceremony
Bach used that example to argue two main points:
- Improvised intimate acts happen in film and television production.
- Such improvisation, when mutual, undermines a claim based solely on gender discrimination.
The court even smiled at Bach’s offbeat reference when he asked if the judge was familiar with the show. After the judge admitted he was not, Bach described the program and said actors there often improvised closeness.
How the defense framed consent and context
Bach told the court the alleged touching between Baldoni and Blake Lively was part of character interaction, not an act targeting Lively as a woman. He also stressed that Lively knew the film would include intimate sequences when she signed on.
He described the actress’s complaints as minor and not rising to sexual harassment.
Prosecution counters: consent, boundaries, and Lively’s account
Esra Hudson, one of Lively’s lawyers, rejected the defense narrative. She told the judge that Lively experienced physical contact she did not agree to during filming.
Hudson emphasized that prior awareness of intimate scenes is not the same as consenting to unexpected or unwanted touching. She urged the court to focus on whether the physical acts crossed personal boundaries on set.
Key points raised by each side
- Defense: Industry improvisation and scene context negate gender-based claims.
- Plaintiff: Specific unwanted touches occurred despite the nature of the film.
- Judge: The subject matter of a movie does not erase the need for consent.
The specific allegations in the lawsuit
In court papers, Lively says one scene involved a slow-dance rehearsal where Baldoni leaned in and moved his mouth along her ear and neck. She alleges he made a remark about her scent. When she protested the conduct, she claims he replied that he did not find her attractive.
Those details form the heart of her sexual-harassment complaint. The lawsuit says the gestures were unwanted and happened off the record during a quiet montage shoot.
Footage released and the defense response
Baldoni’s attorney Bryan Freedman released behind-the-scenes video of the slow-dance rehearsal. The defense asserts the clip shows professional behavior and mutual cooperation.
Freedman described the scene as a portrayal of two characters growing close and said the actors behaved respectfully and within the scene’s parameters.
Judge’s pushback and legal context
Judge Lewis Liman questioned how the defense’s industry examples translate to consent. He told the lawyers that the fact a film is intimate does not grant license to touch others without agreement.
Bach responded that context matters, arguing the actors’ roles and the scene’s intent are relevant to any legal determination.
Industry example used by defense and cast comments
To illustrate his point, Bach referenced the queer hockey romance series and cited reports that its male leads improvised sexual scenes. One actor from that show later joked about getting comfortable near co-stars and called their dynamic a “nightmare” for human resources.
Those comments were used to show how on-set intimacy can become routine in certain productions.
What the court heard about professional conduct
Both sides brought competing visions of how actors should behave during intimate scenes. The defense leaned on custom and context. The plaintiff stressed personal autonomy and the need for clear consent.
The dispute now turns on whether any touching exceeded agreed choreography or crossed a line into harassment.
