Fame Under Fire – "Blake V Justin: Could the case be tossed out?"

Podcast: Fame Under Fire, BBC Sounds
Host: Anoushka Mutanda-Dougherty
Guest: Sean Kent (Trial Attorney)
Date: November 27, 2025

Episode Overview

In this episode, Anoushka Mutanda-Dougherty and legal expert Sean Kent dive deep into the high-profile lawsuit between actors Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni, stemming from allegations of sexual harassment and retaliation on the set of “It Ends With Us.” The episode focuses on the latest development: the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, which seeks to have the case thrown out before it reaches a jury. The hosts break down the legal arguments, discuss critical nuances of harassment law, and debate whether these claims should be decided in court—or by a jury.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Lawsuit’s Background and Current Status

• Blake Lively filed a lawsuit against Justin Baldoni (her co-star), along with Wayfarer Studios and others, alleging sexual harassment, retaliation, defamation, and breach of contract ([01:42]-[02:24]).
• Justin Baldoni and the other defendants have responded with a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the case shouldn't go before a jury at all based on the legal definitions and lack of actionable facts.
• Sean Kent clarifies the concept of summary judgment: the defendants argue there are no disputed material facts needing a jury, only questions about law ([02:24]):

  “We want a jury to make the decision who’s right or wrong... But when you’re talking about summary judgment... Say there are no facts in dispute. There is a question about the law. The jury doesn’t get to decide the law. Your Honor, you get to tell us what the law is in this situation... throw this case out because we don’t want the jury to hear it at all.” – Sean [02:24]

2. Arguments Around Sexual Harassment: Context, Gender, Patterns

• Context of Filming:

  • Defendants argue that because the film has “sensual and provocative, sexually charged” themes, comments made on set should be viewed differently than in a normal workplace ([03:18]-[05:05]).
  • Anoushka notes the inconsistency: this was only a PG-13 movie, so how “charged” was it really? ([06:05])
  • Sean pushes back:

    “That is the problem with their argument... Can you imagine the slippery slope... The base type of place you are, you don’t get to complain about sexual harassment. If you’re in a certain job, your boss has a right to do certain things...? ...I don’t think a court is going to go for [that].” – Sean [05:05]

• “Motivated by Gender” Argument:

  • The motion claims alleged conduct (e.g. excessive hugging) wasn’t gender-specific, undermining the sexual harassment claim ([06:35]-[08:06]).
  • Sean refutes this interpretation of the law:

    “If I come to my office and hug everybody and there’s one person who doesn’t want to be hugged, they have a right to file a complaint... Just because everybody at your office enjoys something and one person doesn’t, doesn’t mean that one person doesn’t have rights.” – Sean [07:25] “Any unwanted sexual advance... because we don’t want to create these situations where people can scream through loopholes and say, look, this isn’t gender based. I was harassing them, but it wasn’t gender based.” – Sean [08:06]

• Pattern vs. Single Severe Incident:

  • Defendants argue Lively’s experiences were “low level” or “innocuous,” lacking the pervasive pattern required for a hostile environment ([09:53]-[12:11]).
  • Sean highlights two paths to a hostile environment: pervasive patterns or single egregious actions.
  • Reference to the “pubic hair on the Coke can” (Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas case) as an example: sometimes one incident is “egregious enough” ([10:43]-[12:11]).

    “There can be one action so egregious that it’s something that you won’t forget. …It might just be one, but that is one.” – Sean [11:00]

  • A notable scene is detailed: Blake Lively’s account of a chaotic, unprotected birth scene shoot—which could rise to a single egregious event, depending on the jury’s perspective ([12:11]-[14:41]).

3. Intimacy Coordinators, Rider Agreements, and Retaliation

• After Lively’s complaints, an agreement (contract rider) was signed mandating specific on-set protections ([16:39]-[18:36]).
• The motion argues the signing of this agreement is not an admission of prior wrongdoing.
• Anoushka probes if signing such a document, without objecting to the listed grievances, could be seen by a jury as implicit acknowledgement something happened.

  “[Juries] can make different decisions on what they’re reading. Somebody could say it makes sense, somebody could say it doesn't. That’s why it’s not, to me, possibly proper for summary judgment.” – Sean [18:36]

4. Retaliation and Defamation Claims

• Lively alleges she suffered a “coordinated attack” online after lodging her complaints ([19:26]-[22:59]).

  • The defense argues negative sentiment was due to her own PR missteps and past controversies (e.g. marrying at a plantation, awkward interviews), not retaliation or manipulation by defendants.
  • Anoushka notes the motion’s inconsistencies—describing the movie as both a “sexy” film and a “serious” one about domestic violence, as context suits the legal point ([20:15]).

• The question of whether actively amplifying negative press online could rise to retaliation or defamation is discussed.

  “It follows under both of them, but it follows under that last element that we almost always talk about: damages... Did Baldoni’s team... make her damages worse... or were Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds’ [reputation] already damaged?” – Sean [22:22]

• The role of silence: Is simply not defending a colleague under attack retaliation? Sean says this could be an argument for summary judgment in the defendant's favor ([23:23]):

  “I could see a court saying... Baldoni did not create the defamatory conduct... [they] didn’t start this.” – Sean [23:34]

• The judge can pick and choose which claims, if any, survive summary judgment. Some parts could be thrown out while others go to trial ([24:27]).

5. Judicial Attitudes Toward Summary Judgment

• Sean explains that judges are generally reluctant to grant summary judgment unless the claim is clearly invalid—U.S. legal culture favors juries deciding cases ([24:56]).

  “Judges hate to grant summary judgment... Our system is designed for a trial by jury... If [summary judgment is granted], that means the judge really is strong that he thought you had a bad claim.” – Sean [24:56]

6. Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Anoushka encapsulates the back-and-forth logic of legal motions:

  “Sort of like the judge. Do you believe that? No. What about this? Nope. What about this? You do it. It’s legal gymnastics, if you will.” – Anoushka [20:15]

• Sean, on jury unpredictability:

  “That is why I love our jury system, because different people can make different decisions on what they’re reading.” – Sean [18:36]

• Playful banter throughout, e.g. Sean’s late arrival due to a nail appointment ([01:13])

Timestamps for Important Segments

• [01:13] – Host and guest introductions (skip ads before)
• [02:24] – Legal definition of summary judgment
• [03:18] – Contextual defense: "it's a sexually charged film"
• [05:05] – Sean’s rebuttal: the “slippery slope” problem
• [07:25] – Gender and sexual harassment law analysis
• [09:53] – Pattern vs. single egregious act in harassment cases
• [12:11] – Birth scene incident described; “Coke can” analogy
• [16:19] – Agreement for on-set protections; legal implications discussed
• [19:26] – Retaliation, past controversies, and online attacks
• [22:22] – Damages, defamation, and social manipulation analysis
• [23:34] – Could silence be retaliation? Yes—for summary judgment
• [24:56] – Why judges are reluctant to grant summary judgment
• [26:17] – “Could you pass the bar?” segment, legal quiz

Conclusion & Next Steps

• Blake Lively’s legal team’s detailed response to the motion for summary judgment is due December 3rd, with close analysis promised in an upcoming episode.
• The questions swirling around context, harm, retaliation, and the role of jury versus judge in such disputes remain wide open.
• As always, host Anoushka keeps the discussion engaging, witty, and accessible—even as topics turn technical.

Memorable sign-off:

“Thank you for having me. I appreciate you. I apologize for running late, but the nails are fabulous.” – Sean Kent [29:01]

For listeners following celebrity legal battles, this episode is a masterclass in how the U.S. legal system handles sexual harassment, workplace retaliation, and defamation claims—balancing nuanced statute, human behavior, and legal tactics, all filtered through the lens of pop culture and public opinion.

Next Episode Tease: Lively’s legal response and whether her case survives the motion to dismiss. Stay tuned!