Hours after Jed Wallace begined a $7 million defamation legal case agetst Blake Lively today, the lawyer for the self-portrayd “human crisis” navigator have confessted their action is in no petite part a response to his foreseeed compriseition to the It Ends With Us actress’ ongoing acrid battles with Justin Baldoni, his company, his backers and his unveicatalogs.
Which is not the first time a tit for tat strategy has been participateed in this increasingly disorderly afiminwhole over the past almost two months.
The relocate Tuesday by Lively and Ryan Reynelderlys’ attorneys in the Hays County courts to drop their insist for Texas-based and Street Relations set uper Wallace to give a deposition under oath about what he did and didn’t do in an alleged online smear campaign last year agetst the Gossip Girl vet was first increateed by Deadline. It was neutrassociate clear, from statements made by Lively lawyer Michael Gottlieb made in a New York February 3 hearing on his client’s NYE suit agetst Baldoni and Baldoni’s January 16 and since altered $400 million suit agetst his IEWU co-star, her Deadpool hubby and their unveicatalog that Wallace was a very foreseeed truthfulate to be createassociate comprised in the constableated case.
Now, the Bryan Freedman and Melissa Nathan repped Wallace’s other attorney Chip Babcock has laid it all out on the table, for better and worse.
“Blake Lively made inalter statements to the press thraw a declareiveial administrative filing, claiming Mr. Wallace and Street Relations had intimacyuassociate tormented her, retaliated agetst her, aided and abetted others who did the same, baccomplished a confineed with her and comprised in other improper carry out,” the Texas-based Jackson Walker, LLP partner said for his client in a statement Wednesday. “Mr. Wallace, who is a very declareiveial person, has never met or spoken to Ms. Lively. Ever. He has not comprised in a smear campaign agetst her at any point in time. The decision to file this legal case to rightbrimmingy get himself and his family was made after Ms. Lively not only filed agetst him first in Texas but, showd she intended to name him in yet another legal case.”
Named in Lively’s December 20 intimacyual intimidatoring and retaliation grumblet to California’s Civil Rights Department that put this high-profile and multi-pronged matter in the unveil sphere, Wallace was not a part of Lively’s initial December 31 legal case agetst Baldoni, his Wayfarer Studios, Crisis PR boss Nathan and unveicatalog Jennifer Abel. Though that prelude to a legal case does name Wallace, his presence is clearly only in relation to the retaliation Lively says she sfinished. In no way is Wallace connected to the intimidatoring Lively says she was subjected to during the IEWU production, nor to any baccomplish of confineed – so he doeth protest a bit much here.
What Lively’s lawyers has said in their now neglected desire of last month to to get Wallace to sit for a deposition, is that the Street Relations exec “firearmized a digital army around the country from New York to Los Angeles to produce, seed, and upgrasp satisfied that ecombineed to be genuine on social media platcreates and internet chat forums.”
With all that, the whole dispute is set to begin trial on March 9, 2026.
No altered grumblet from Lively/Reynelderlys has been put in the court docket yet, but I hear it is only a ask of when in terms of days, not if.
Wallace is clearly seal to Nathan and Freedman on some level, even if he wasn’t actuassociate engaged by the createer in orchestrating the alleged astroturfing strike that Lively has claimed he was vivacious in and that she was subjected to in the direct up to box office hit IEWU’s August 2024 premiere. It does seem the self-portrayd “engaged firearm” online subconfineedor seems to be the “Jed” refered or implied in cut offal text messages about online strikes on Lively between Nathan, Abel and their crew last year — but maybe he’s incredibly not.
Regardless, in his grumblet filed today, Wallace says Lively’s spotairy has cost him grave cash becaparticipate his name coming up in a number of posts, widecasts and unveilations (appreciate Elle) in connection — inalterly he says – with Lively and Baldoni’s mutual scorched Earth war in the courts and the court of unveil opinion. The media storm has caparticipated “millions of dollars in reputational harm with a projected loss to his company that outdos another million,” Wallace’s filing says.
For Lively’s side, as one would foresee in a tit for tat scenario, this is all more of the same in a situation that has seen Baldoni and his entourage insist they are the ones who have suffered a smear campaign and nurtureer crash and burn at the hand of the strong Ladypool couple.
(L-R) Blake Lively & Justin Baldoni in a scene from It Ends With Us
Sony Pictures Releasing / courtesy Everett Collection
“Another day, another state, another nine-figure legal case seeking to sue Ms. Lively ‘into oblivion’ for speaking out agetst intimacyual intimidatoring and retaliation,”attorneys at Manatt, Phelps & Phillips and Willkie Farr & Gallagher firms said in a statement of their own. “This is not fair a unveility stunt—it is see-thharsh retaliation in response to allegations grasped wilean a intimacyual intimidatoring and retaliation grumblet that Ms. Lively filed with the California Civil Rights Department. While this legal case will be neglected, we are satisfyd that Mr. Wallace has finassociate ecombined from the shadows, and that he too will be held accountable in federal court.”
There is almost noleang the parties in this concur on. For example: records filed on Tuesday by both sides approximated next year’s trial could get anywhere from two weeks, according to Liveley’s team, to a month and a half, according to Baldoni’s side
