Blake V Justin: Slow dancing, circumcision and famous pals

Summary

---

Fame Under Fire – "Blake V Justin: Slow dancing, circumcision and famous pals"

Host: Anoushka Mutanda-Dougherty | Guest: Dr. Sean Kent
Date: December 11, 2025 | Platform: BBC Sounds

---

Main Theme

This episode takes an in-depth look at the escalating legal battle between actors Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni, co-stars of the film It Ends With Us. The central focus is on allegations of sexual harassment, hostile work environment, and retaliation made by Lively against Baldoni and others behind the movie. Host Anoushka Mutanda-Dougherty, joined by trial attorney Dr. Sean Kent, unpacks depositions, responses, the intersection of PR management and legal claims, and the wider implications such celebrity cases may hold.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Case Overview and Current State

• Background: Blake Lively accuses Justin Baldoni (co-star and producer) and Jamie Heath (Wayfarer Studios CEO) of sexual harassment and orchestrating a smear campaign. The defendants deny all charges.
• Recent Developments:
  • Defendants have motioned for summary judgment (i.e., end the case without a full jury trial).
  • Lively’s side has responded, and excerpts from Baldoni’s deposition are now public.
• Central Questions: Is there enough factual dispute for the case to proceed to a jury trial? How does the same piece of evidence (e.g., film scene footage) serve both parties’ arguments?

2. Allegations of Harassment on Set

• Montage/Slow Dance Scene:

  • Lively claims Baldoni improvised physical intimacy—unscripted touches and remarks—making her uncomfortable.
  • Both parties cite the same behind-the-scenes footage to support their argument (professionalism vs. visible discomfort).
  • Quote:
    "Both people are looking at the exact same piece of evidence and they both can look at it differently... If it is subject to interpretation by two different people, then one person, a judge, should not make the decision and it should go forth to a jury." — Dr. Sean Kent (05:16)

• Legal Interpretation:

  • Dr. Kent notes the difference between clear-cut evidence and matters open to interpretation.
  • The civil bar is “preponderance of the evidence”—simply “more likely than not.”
  • Quote:
    "He is saying she's loving it. And she's like, no, no, I am not... If they can prove that more likely than not Blake's beliefs were reasonable, then they've got a real chance." — Dr. Sean Kent (06:30)

3. Depositions, Redactions & Transparency

• Redacted Transcripts: Much of Baldoni’s deposition remains blacked-out; portions of Lively’s response are, too.

  • This is frustrating for both journalists and legal professionals.
  • Quote:
    "If you choose to file a lawsuit, everything comes in with you... And so when we are blacking things out...you better have a good reason." — Dr. Sean Kent (08:08)

• Example of Alleged Inappropriate Conversation:

  • Lively alleges Baldoni discussed personal sexual matters without her consent.
  • Baldoni claims such a discussion was contextually connected to acting and story authenticity.

4. Circumcision Conversation and Broader Work Culture Claims

• Lively’s Account: Baldoni allegedly volunteered personal information (circumcision status) unsolicited when they first met.
• Baldoni’s Response: Context was a broader conversation about children and families, with multiple people around.
• Hostile work environment vs. isolated comments:
  • Dr. Kent explains that claims rest on illustration of a pervasive pattern, not a single incident.
  • Quote:
    "The argument from her is going to be by itself. I can see why somebody would say that. But...because of the way that this atmosphere was, that was not an innocuous comment. It added to the pervasiveness of the hostile work environment." — Dr. Sean Kent (12:40)

5. Set Culture: Hugging, Gender, and Addressing Concerns

• Concerns about Baldoni’s “daily hugging”: Both Lively and actress Jenny Slate reportedly raised culture issues on set.
• Baldoni admits he addressed concerns, but didn’t escalate formally (e.g., to HR), as policy would require.
• Whether this helps/hurts his defense:
  • Dr. Kent argues it strengthens Lively’s claims:
    "I think it hurts his claim. I think it shows that he acknowledges that there are stuff that was wrong there...” (14:15)

---

6. Retaliation and Crisis PR Management

• Lively’s Claim: After she raised issues and made demands (including anti-retaliation provisions), she alleges a coordinated PR campaign targeted her online, escalating harassment.

• Baldoni’s Defense:

  • They hired a crisis PR firm—standard practice, not illegal, and in response to Lively’s public stance and her “famous husband” (Ryan Reynolds).
  • Quote:
    "There's nothing wrong with it. If he would have come to us, we would encourage him to do the same." — Dr. Sean Kent (16:39)

• Organic vs. Engineered Backlash:

  • The host presents the idea of online negativity growing beyond initial seeds planted by interested parties.
  • Quote:
    "Baldoni and the defendants might have planted the seed, but it was the Internet that watered the garden." — Anoushka (18:48)
  • Dr. Kent views the retaliation claim as the weakest:
    "It's gonna be almost impossible to prove unless you actually have a whistleblower to get on the stand and say, ‘this was our actual intent.’ ...I think this is her worst claim, and it's not even close." (18:58)

---

7. Reputation, Past Controversies, and Legal Risk

• Historical Context:

  • Negative press for Lively existed before these allegations (e.g., marriage at Boone Hall, a plantation [19:48]).
  • Viral “bump” interview clip (2016) recirculated during the controversy.

• Trial Impact:

  • Old controversies could become fair game if Lively claims reputational damage.
  • Quote:
    "If a jury hates you, you lose. If they like you, they'll try to find a way to help you win." — Dr. Sean Kent (22:42)

---

8. Power Dynamics: Who Holds Real-World Influence?

• Traditional View: Boss/employee relationships define power dynamics in harassment cases.

• Hollywood Nuance:

  • Baldoni points to Lively’s famous friends and celebrity status (“a titan...some of the most powerful people in the world”) giving her unusual de facto power.
  • Lively points to production hierarchy, where Baldoni and Heath were her employers.

• Jury’s Role:

  • The jury decides how power dynamics affected behavior and credibility, guided but not prescribed by the judge.
  • Quote:
    "He explains to them what power dynamics are...then he says it's up to you to make the determination on if the power dynamic made any effect..." — Dr. Sean Kent (26:28)

• Dr. Kent’s Defense Strategy (if representing Baldoni):

  • Stress Lively’s A-list status, suggest Baldoni is the “small guy.”
  • Subpoena famous friends as witnesses “or have them visible in the courtroom” to highlight the star-studded nature of Lively’s support network.

---

9. Wider Implications and Precedent

• If Lively wins on the retaliation claim (proving PR management crossed a legal line), high-profile cases could reshape how celebrity PR is handled in legal disputes.

---

10. Comparisons to Other Cases

• Reference to precedents in other high-profile celebrity cases (Amber Heard/Johnny Depp, Rebel Wilson).
• Discussion about jury bias and the impossibility of perfect impartiality—paralleling questions about juror conduct in the unrelated Diddy trial.

---

Memorable Quotes and Moments

• On evidence and interpretation:

  • "If it is subject to interpretation by two different people, then one person, a judge, should not make the decision..." — Dr. Sean Kent (05:16)

• On the civil legal bar:

  • "Is it more likely than not that this happened?" — Dr. Sean Kent (06:30)

• On redactions:

  • "If you choose to file a lawsuit, everything comes in with you...when we are blacking things out...you better have a good reason." — Dr. Sean Kent (08:08)

• On the weakness of retaliation claims:

  • "I think this is her worst claim, and it's not even close." — Dr. Sean Kent (18:58)

• On reputational risk:

  • "If a jury hates you, you lose. If they like you, they'll try to find a way to help you win." — Dr. Sean Kent (22:42)

• On trial strategy:

  • "I would make him [Baldoni] the smallest individual they have ever seen. I'd make him a nobody..." — Dr. Sean Kent (27:47)

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• 01:16 – Case Introduction
• 03:21 – Specific Harassment Allegations and Montage Scene
• 05:16 – Why the Judge May Have to Let a Jury Decide
• 08:08 – Redactions in Legal Filings
• 10:10 – Sexual Comments and Power Dynamics
• 12:11 – Circumcision Conversation – Inappropriate or Not?
• 13:23 – Set Culture and Daily Hugging
• 14:58 – Retaliation & PR Management
• 19:48 – Historic Reputation Issues (i.e., Plantation Wedding)
• 20:22 – Viral Pregnancy "Bump" Interview
• 23:48 – Risks of Retaliation Claims at Trial
• 24:46 – Precedent and PR Teams in High-profile Lawsuits
• 25:40 – Baldoni on Feeling "Small" vs. Lively's Power
• 26:28 – Jury Instructions on Power Dynamics
• 27:47 – Defense Strategies for Baldoni
• 29:17 – Brief Diddy Jury Question (parallels)
• 30:54 – How Jury Bias Might Enter Lively v. Baldoni

---

Conclusion

This episode brings clarity and sharp analysis to a complex, headline-dominating legal case with layered allegations, legal maneuvering, and cultural context. Through candid commentary and real-world legal insight, Anoushka and Dr. Kent illuminate the intricacies of celebrity lawsuits and the shifting lines between PR, harassment, and reputation in the age of social media and “newsfluencers.” The episode poses unresolved questions about power, the meaning of harassment, and the unpredictability of jury perception, setting the stage for what may be a closely watched trial with wider repercussions across Hollywood and beyond.

---

Transcript

[Dr. Sean Kent]

This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the uk.

[Anoushka Mutandadouati]

What do you think makes the perfect snack?

[Dr. Sean Kent]

Hmm, it's gotta be when I'm really craving it and it's convenient.

[Anoushka Mutandadouati]

Could you be more specific?

[Dr. Sean Kent]

When it's cravinient.

[Anoushka Mutandadouati]

Okay.

[Dr. Sean Kent]

Like a freshly baked cookie made with real butter available right down the street at a.m. p.m. Or a savory breakfast sandwich I can grab in just a second at a.m. p.m.

[Sarah]

I'm seeing a pattern here.

[Dr. Sean Kent]

Well, yeah, we're talking about what I.

[Sarah]

Crave, which is anything from AM pm.

[Dr. Sean Kent]

What more could you want?

[AM PM Advertiser]

Stop by AM PM where the snacks and drinks are perfectly craveable and convenient. Convenient? That's Cravenians AM PM Too much. Good stuff.

[Sarah]

Hey, this is Sarah. Look, I'm standing out front of a.m. p.m. Right now and well, you're sweet and all, but I found something more fulfilling, even kind of cheesy. But I like it. Sure, you met some of my dietary needs, but they've just got it all. So farewell, oatmeal, so long. Use strange soggy.

[AM PM Advertiser]

Break up with bland breakfast and taste AM PM's bacon, egg and cheese biscuit made with cage free eggs, smoked bacon and melty cheese on a buttery biscuit. AM P M. Too much. Good stuff.

[Anoushka Mutandadouati]

Hello and welcome back to Fame Under Fire from BBC Sounds. With me, Anoushka Mutandadouati.

Today we are back with the Blake Lively versus Justin Baldoni case. We are looking at this one in depth and if all goes ahead to a jury trial, I'm going back to New York to cover this one for you every day, just like we did with Diddy. So please subscrib. Tell your friends about us, tell your family about us, send us your questions and tell us what other trials you want because we are listening. But if you have no idea what I'm talking about. First they were co stars in the movie. It ends with us. Now they are locked in a bitter and very expensive legal feud with Blake Lively, accusing Justin Baldoni and others involved in the film, like Jamie Heath, who's the CEO of Wayfarer Studios. That's the production company that made the movie. She's accused him of sexual harassment and coordinating a smear campaign against her. These are claims that all of the defendants deny. Now, a couple of weeks ago, we told you about the latest response from the defendants. It was a motion for a summary judgment, essentially saying, judge, just make the decision. There is no need for this to go to a jury. You can decide if this meets the bar for sexual harassment, retaliation, defamation, etcetera and you should find in favour of the defendants and throw this case out. Now, Blake Lively's side have responded to that. We also, rather helpfully now have access to bits of Justin Baldoni's deposition so we can hear some of what he said when he was questioned under oath. And just like last time, we are going to focus on those accusations of harassment and retaliation. Joining me now is our resident trial attorney, Dr. Sean Kent.

[Dr. Sean Kent]

Hey, Nushka, how are you doing?

[Anoushka Mutandadouati]

See, I threw the doctor in there because people don't know you threw the doctor in.

[Dr. Sean Kent]

The doctor. The doctor is in.

[Anoushka Mutandadouati]

Dr. Kent is in the house. Sean, I missed you. Sean was on holiday in Las Vegas playing the slot machines.

[Dr. Sean Kent]

Yeah. That is a true statement with your.

[Anoushka Mutandadouati]

Parents, which I think my mom.

[Dr. Sean Kent]

Oh, wait, y' all say mom with my mom and dad with my.

[Anoushka Mutandadouati]

Yeah, because that's the way you're supposed to say it. Also. What am I wearing?

[Dr. Sean Kent]

You're wearing a Brooklyn United States sweatshirt. Wait, no, that's a jumper.

[Anoushka Mutandadouati]

It's a jumper.

[Dr. Sean Kent]

That's a jumper. You're wearing a jumper today. I got it. It's not a sweatshirt, it's a jumper.

[Anoushka Mutandadouati]

Text Sean that he was wearing a jumper and he was like, what the hell is that?

[Dr. Sean Kent]

Anyway, Jumper.

[Anoushka Mutandadouati]

We've got to get down to business with this because these guys file all the time. This is the Justin Baldoni Blake Lively case. Now, in Lively's filing, she alleges that Baldoni pressured her to perform unscripted nudity, made personal sexual remarks, improvised physical intimacy without her consent. These are all claims that he denies, but that is in her response. Those are allegations we've heard before. She's been making those accusations consistently. One example she cited in her original complaint is the slow dance scene for a montage in the movie. Now, it says, quote, Mr. Baldoni chose to spontaneously improvise the scene while the cameras were rolling. During the filming, Mr. Baldoni repeatedly leaned in towards Ms. Lively, attempting to kiss her, kissing her forehead, rubbing his face and mouth against her neck, putting his thumb to her mouth, flicking her lower lip, caressing her and telling her how good she smells. They say that none of this took place while Mr. Baldoni was, quote, in character as Ryle, because both the intimacy and dialogue departed from what had been agreed to in the script. In January, Baldoni's attorneys released the footage of that scene. And they released it because they say it disproves the allegation. Their statement read, both actors are clearly behaving well within the scope of the scene and with mutual Respect and professionalism. Now, in Lively's response, her team alleges the video proves her point, saying behind the scenes footage captures Lively's visible discomfort, including her leaning and pulling away from Baldoni and repeatedly suggesting that their characters should just talk. Shawn, this is a bit of a unique situation, right? Same piece of evidence. Both sides feel that it speaks to their argument. Baldoni saying it shows professionalism and safe working practices on set. Blake Lively saying it proves that she was uncomfortable and she didn't want to be in that situation. When both sides claim the same footage backs their version, how is the judge, let alone a jury, supposed to decide which one is right?

[Dr. Sean Kent]

Well, you just got the first part of what I was exactly thinking. How was a judge supposed to decide? Because remember, all the judge is trying to decide is, as a matter of law, should this go to the jury? Is there a genuine question of fact that a jury needs to decide? And based upon what you've just said, there really is. Both people are looking at the exact same piece of evidence and they both can look at it differently. So someone might say, well, won't everybody always say that? No. Give you an example of a car accident. If in a car accident there is a video and one side says the light is green and the other side says the light is red, and all of a sudden we have a video of a green light, well, that doesn't need to go to the jury because we know what the facts show. A green light in this situation. What they're saying is this evidence is subject to interpretation by two different people. If it is subject to interpretation by two different people, then one person, a judge, should not make the decision and it should go forth to a jury. So that's why I think Blake is going to have a stronger argument that this should go forth to a jury and should win. The summary judgment motion filed by Justin would be my gut reaction.

[Anoushka Mutandadouati]

And just remind me, what is the bar for jurors? It's not beyond a reasonable doubt in civil cases, is it?

[Dr. Sean Kent]

Exactly. So the bar for juries is much lower in a civil standard than it is in a criminal standard And a civil standard. It is beyond a preponderance of the evidence. And so when you want to make that more, simply stated, is, is it more likely than not that this happened? He is saying she's loving it. And she's like, no, no, I am not. And so that's going to be what's put in front of the jury is she's going to be able to say, he may have thought that I enjoyed it. I, however, did not. And so if they can prove that that more likely than not that Blake's beliefs were reasonable, then they've got a real chance. And if you go back to the Diddy case, it's like we always go back to the Diddy case because we all know about these jurors. Jurors bring their subjective beliefs to that jury room with them. And let's say you have seven women, and three or four of them have been in that uncomfortable situation where I don't want to say anything. My boss has made me uncomfortable, but I don't want to lose my job. He's hugging everybody and hugging me, and I'm not comfortable with that. Those jurors bring their subjective beliefs into the room with them.

[Anoushka Mutandadouati]

Let's look at some of the other allegations, because what we now helpfully have is access to some bits of Justin Baldoni's deposition. Now, there are huge chunks missing. The page numbers jump from, like 1 to page 34 and then jump again. There are also huge chunks redacted, blacked out, literally blacked out. In Blake's response to the motion for summary judgment, Sean, why are there bits redacted in both of these taken away from the deposition, taken away from Blake's response? And why do you not love that?

[Dr. Sean Kent]

I personally hate it. Like I said. And when we take a deposition, what we tell everybody is, once you file a lawsuit, what do. You've heard me say this a million times? If you choose to file a lawsuit, everything comes in with you. There is nothing to be hidden. Any. And we tell people that, you sure you want to file this lawsuit? Because if you do, they can ask anything. Your personal life, your sex history, everything can come in. And so when we are blacking those things out from a deposition that we are releasing to the public, you better have a good reason. And there could be attorney client privileged information. That's usually the biggest one. Some type of privileged information that John Q. Public should not be allowed to know. There could be impermissible questions asked during the deposition that some judge has ruled that those are subject to questions that can't be asked. And there could just be embarrassing details that she doesn't want John Q. Public to know. That's my problem is, number three is I don't care if it's embarrassing. You shouldn't bring the lawsuit to begin with.

[Anoushka Mutandadouati]

Now, for us as journalists, that's annoying because you're trying to give a fair and impartial representation of what's being said. So Lively's latest response also claims Baldoni directed personal sexual comments at her. While the exact language is redacted, blacked out, the filing argues that agreeing to act in a romantic drama does not indicate her consent to discuss personal sexual fantasies, her sex life, or pornography. In his deposition, Baldoni addressed one claim about discussing his own love life. He said the conversation that he has with Blake arose after a creative meeting with the intimacy coordinator. He says the idea was that Lily, that's the character that Blake played, had climaxed and Ryle did not. We were exploring what might feel authentic and appealing to the female gaze. When I shared that with Ms. Lively, she said, oh, God, that would mortify me if that happened. I responded by saying, some of the most beautiful moments have been when that's happened with me and my wife, and that was it. Sean, in that example, don't we have an exchange of information about sexual situations? Because he's saying, you know, it's beautiful when that happens with me and my wife. And she's saying, God, that would mortify me if that happened, or she's sharing a piece of information there.

[Dr. Sean Kent]

Even with our Diddy situation, we always talk about power dynamics. We always talk about the fact there's a dynamic in power. And so I'm engaging in these consensual conversation, but they're not consensual because of the power dynamics. And she might make those conversations that I was very uncomfortable, but I was trying to stay as professional as possible, but I did not enjoy this at all.

[Anoushka Mutandadouati]

And we're gonna get into some conversations about power dynamics later on, because it does come up a few times. The next comment is around this circumcision. I know a lot of people have been talking about this on social media. Lively's filing says Baldoni volunteered that he was circumcised when they first met without her prompting. Baldoni disputes that, saying the topic came up in a broader conversation about her unborn son and whether the baby would be circumcised. He says, quote, there were people all around. This is during his deposition. Assistants, nannies, even Mr. Reynolds. Ryan Reynolds was in and out. It wasn't a private conversation. So there we have essentially bringing in broader context. My question is, when a jury are considering if a comment is inappropriate, if it meets the bar for harassment, are they told to consider just the comment itself or when, where and who else was present when it was made?

[Dr. Sean Kent]

And that's. That's also a great question, because if you think about it, when we talk about our two different types of sexual harassment. Remember one we talk about pervasive pattern, that there is that pattern of sexual harassment. If you go to work and your boss says the same sexual jokes around 30 different people, if there's sexual pictures in the office, if there's emails that are going around, if there's inappropriate memes that are going around individually, they may not seem like a big deal. But what Blake will argue is the pervasiveness of this environment overborne the ability for me to feel safe in a hostile work environment, that it will go directly towards what she is saying now. If it's just one, it's not enough. And that's why we have to have that one that is so extreme, so egregious to make it one. She's saying there's more than one, there's so many. That this was a hostilely charged work.

[Anoushka Mutandadouati]

Environment, but with that specific topic of circumcision. And he's saying it arose from a conversation about her unborn son. A lot of people online are arguing, you know, it's not directly sexual. She's talking about something which is a medical procedure. Some people get it for religious reasons, some people get it because they think it's cleaner. And he's saying, yeah, I've got this. That doesn't meet the bar for sexual harassment because it's not inherently sexual. It's just a conversation about a bit of your biology that you've had altered.

[Dr. Sean Kent]

The argument from her is going to be by itself. I can see why somebody would say that. But if I'm in an environment where we're talking about male penises, male body, if he's talking about my body, if he's in my face, if he's pulling me tight, if he's saying these things over and over and over again. One innocuous, innocent comment may seem that way to you. If we take it in a vacuum, however, because of the way that this atmosphere was, that was not an innocuous comment. It added to the pervasiveness of the hostile work environment. That's going to be our argument. I'm not saying it's a strong one. That's going to be her argument, that yes, John Q. Public sees it by itself, but it wasn't by itself. It was not in a vacuum and it wasn't the only thing that was said or done.

[Anoushka Mutandadouati]

Now, in the deposition, Baldoni was also asked about reports that some crew members felt uncomfortable with daily hugging. This was something Lively had mentioned as an example of gender based conduct. He said he stopped the practice but did not escalate the issue to HR despite policy requiring supervisors to report concerns. Now, both Jenny Slate, she's another actress who actually played his sister in the film, and Blake Lively raised concerns about Baldoni's comments and the set culture. Baldoni acknowledged sending messages through producer Alex Sachs to apologize and assure adjustments. He testified these concerns were genuine and not fabricated to seize control of the film. So he didn't escalate the complaint, but he did, he says, take steps to address it. He's accepting those concerns were genuine. Does this help his case at all? Because his team can say, you know, he's not flat out denying everything. When he thought concerns were genuine, he addressed it and took steps to remedy it.

[Dr. Sean Kent]

See, that's funny on my side of you. I think it hurts his claim. I think it shows that he acknowledges that there are stuff that was wrong there and that she is not being frivolous in her thoughts. He did not take these to HR the way they he was supposed to. I think it helps her with her pervasive pattern claim because it's not that he is not saying that these acknowledgment and problems on the sets were not accurate. He's in a way, to me, if I'm on the side defending her, I would get in front of the jury and I'd say, look, things were happening there. He was not looking at them from a lens of a woman. He was picking and choosing the things that he thought were problems and didn't take them forward to hr. I think this hurts his claim in front of a jury personally.

[Anoushka Mutandadouati]

And then we come on to retaliation, which is a huge part of this. To understand the retaliation, you really need the background. During a break in filming, when we had strikes, Lively called a meeting at her apartment where she presented a list of demands that would need to be met in order for filming to resume. These included things like an intimacy coordinator must be present at all times when Blake Lively is on set in scenes with Justin Baldoni. It also includes the proviso. There shall be no retaliation of any kind against Ms. Lively for raising concerns about the conduct described. Any chance change in attitude, sarcasm, marginalization or other negative behavior, either on set or otherwise, including during publicity and promotional work. Important. That bit as a result of these requests is retaliatory and unacceptable and will be met with immediate action. Lively argues that the retaliation began almost immediately and continued through a coordinated PR campaign. So in her response, they've said, quote, defendants repeat their mantra that the instantaneous avalanche of online attacks against Lively and other women associated with the film was somehow, quote, organic backlash to Lively, hoping to conceal the fact that their untraceable social manipulation campaign was designed to appear organic. Now, Baldoni's team have told the BBC they hired a crisis manager. They don't deny that they did that because they believe Lively's demands could derail the film. In the motion for summary judgment, they say that Baldoni and Wayfarer were reasonably attempting to protect themselves in a response to an onslaught of vicious negative publicity launched by Lively and her famous husband. That's Ryan Reynolds. Now, Sean, it's not illegal to hire a PR crisis. Whole industries have been built off controlling your narrative, having your say, freedom of speech. I mean, it's very American if you think about it.

[Dr. Sean Kent]

Extremely. There's nothing wrong with it. You know, we have been hired as crisis management. We have sent other people to have people as crisis management. There's nothing wrong with it. If he would have come to us, we would encourage him to do the same.

[Grainger Advertiser]

If you're a maintenance supervisor for a commercial property, you've had to deal with everything from leaky faucets to flickering light bulbs. But nothing's worse than that ancient BO that's lived in the building since the day it was built 50 years ago. It's enough to make anyone lose their cool. That's where Grainger comes in. With industrial grade products and dependable, fast delivery, Grainger can help with any challenge, from worn out components to everyday necessities. Call clickranger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done.

[Ray Winstone]

Hello, it's Ray Winstone. I'm here to tell you about my podcast on BBC Radio 4, History's Toughest Heroes. I've got stories about the pioneers, the rebels, the outcasts who define tough.

[History's Toughest Heroes Narrator]

And that was the first time that anybody ever ran a car up that fast with no tires on. It almost feels like your eyeballs are gonna come out of your head.

[Ray Winstone]

Tough enough for you? Subscribe to History's Toughest Heroes wherever you get your podcast.

[Anoushka Mutandadouati]

So we're talking about retaliation here. Her team was saying that Baldoni and the defendants are saying this was organic, that they were secretly manipulating what was going on behind the scenes. But ultimately, this was gonna happen anyway. My question to you is if Baldoni and the defendants and his PR crisis management team start releasing some stories, and they say Blake is trying to derail the team. Blake's not a nice person. Blake causes problems on set. That and a bunch of people, everyday people not in the music Industry, not in the film industry. Nothing to do with it. JOE Q. Public, as you would say, start seeing. They see some of those reports and they go, I'm going to look into this. Or, oh, I. I think I saw an interview where she came across quite mean. They start finding and digging out old clips, old reports of stuff that she's done in the past completely unrelated to the movie. It ends with us.

Isn't that technically organic? Like, Baldoni and the defendants might have planted the seed, but it was the Internet that watered the garden and fed it the fertilizer.

[Dr. Sean Kent]

Wow, that was dramatic. Woof. Look at that language. Look at that word. Smith, you're rubbing off. You're exactly right. I believe that is her weakest claim by far. The retaliation claim. One, it's gonna be almost impossible to prove unless you actually have a whistleblower to get on the stand and say, this was our actual intent. Two, you are worried about her reputation that was already pretty toxic because of all of this started. And three, what does the public already think of her? Like, did this really ruin her reputation? And if you do a cursory Google search, you'll see that it does not. So I think this is her worst claim, and it's not even close.

[Anoushka Mutandadouati]

I mean, I think I've said this to you before, but I studied her and Ryan Reynolds wedding at university because they got married at Boone hall, which was a plantation, and that caused a.

[Dr. Sean Kent]

Huge Boone hall plantation down in South Carolina, Mount Pleasant.

[Anoushka Mutandadouati]

I mean, it's like, it ain't just a plantation. It's one of the plantation. It's huge.

[Dr. Sean Kent]

It's a plantation. So let's make that clear.

[Anoushka Mutandadouati]

I mean, that was in my degree at university way before this film came out. So that. Yeah, I mean, you could definitely make the argument there were negative stories about her and her partner long before this, but people did go and dig out clips. You know, whether they were instructed to or whether they did that organically is for a jury or potentially a judge to decide. But let's take a listen to one of those that did the rounds.

[Sarah]

First of all, congrats on your little bump.

[Anoushka Mutandadouati]

Congrats on your little bump. So it's Blake Lively being interviewed in 2016, eight years before the film It Ends With Us was released. And you hear the interviewer first saying, congratulations on your little bump because she's pregnant. And Blake Lively says it back, but the interviewer wasn't pregnant.

[Dr. Sean Kent]

And that is the most Sean Kent thing that I have ever heard just now. That is something that I would do and I'm stupid. So I would hope she's a tad bit smarter than me.

[Anoushka Mutandadouati]

In her defense, people have said that Lively had faced intense media speculation about her body and potential pregnancy in the weeks leading up to that interview with articles questioning whether she was pregnant or not at various events. And they said that potentially the reporter's comments on her, quote, little bump for felt intrusive. It could have been an honest mistake. She might have genuinely thought the interviewer was pregnant. But lots of people, a lot of people, let's be clear, interpreted it as passive aggressive. And we're asking, you know, why did she have to say that and make the interviewer feel uncomfortable even though the that clip of that interview is eight years old. This clip was uploaded and went viral at the time of the release of It Ends with us. Could they show this at trial?

[Dr. Sean Kent]

Yes.

[Anoushka Mutandadouati]

Baldoni's team and say, look at this clip, clip, look at this.

[Dr. Sean Kent]

Absolutely.

[Anoushka Mutandadouati]

We didn't record this. We didn't script her to say that.

[Dr. Sean Kent]

Don't forget, she'll have to take the stand and she'll have to testify. And once she ends up testifying, she'll be subject to cross examination. And once she has cross examined, she can be asked anything. And she can open the door to stuff like that when, especially when she gets into the retaliation because she's going to have to prove her damages. And so when she gets in front of that jury initiative, she's going to have to say this, this damaged my reputation. And the second she says anything like that, all of those clips are fair game. And a good lawyer on the other side are going to bring up the Boone hall plantation clips. They're going, and let's assume there's an African American on the jury. They're going to bring up the baby bump clip. Let's assume that there's somebody pregnant on the jury who is or who's been insulted by their weight or somebody who's been bullied. All of those clips come in there. And that's why I say that's the weakest of her claims because juries are people too. And we tell everybody when we get in front of a jury trial, it doesn't matter how strong your claim is, if a jury hates you, you lose. If they like you, they'll try to find a way to help you win.

[Anoushka Mutandadouati]

Yeah. And I should say, you know, Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds, they apologize for their marriage on the plantation. In a post on Instagram, they said, we're ashamed that in the past we've allowed ourselves to be uninformed about how deeply rooted systemic racism is. So you're saying if she gets up there and in any way says, you know, they launched a retaliatory campaign and that ruined my reputation, she open the door to everything. I mean, she's been in the public eye for a long time. So there is no shortage of clips, information, social media posts to go at. And then it's open season for, you know, Baldoni and his team.

[Dr. Sean Kent]

That's what we would be doing. And having a file, we, you know, we have a cross examination file where we're just ready for her to open the door and we can bring clip after clip after clip. And when a judge said when they try to object and say this is irrelevant, the response would be like, no, you, Honor, she opened the door. They say that we were the ones who were responsible for her damaged reputation. And we now have a right to show the jury that she has damaged her own reputation. And I can't see a court not letting all of this information in. And I think that is gonna. That's why I said, I think this is her weakest claim and the claim that can derail her entire lawsuit.

[Anoushka Mutandadouati]

But an important claim, because this is something that's coming up in a lot of different cases. I mean, before we heard about Amber Heard and Johnny Depp, their civil trials that were going on and there was conversations about PR crisis management teams being hired. We have our episode on Rebel Wilson. Go and listen to that. Because there's conversations about act, actually the same PR crisis management team being hired in that. And it feels like there's the opportunity to set a precedent here when it comes to famous plaintiffs and defendants and what counts as retaliation and what is just within the remit of a PR team. Because if they do find that this was retaliation, that this crisis PR management team had actually caused her severe damages, gone out of their way, and constructed a wave of hate and abuse. Couldn't that be then used by multiple other famous defendants and plaintiffs going forwards to bring claims against all other PR and crisis management teams?

[Dr. Sean Kent]

Yeah. It has strong potential precedential value.

[Anoushka Mutandadouati]

But we also hear how Justin Baldoni said this all felt to him in his deposition. He says he found hearing Lively's list of demands traumatic and embarrassing. He says, quote, that list that was read to me contained complete fabrications of the truth. So I very well could have, could have had that be a part of what I felt scared of, comma, lies. But I didn't know. I didn't know anything. I knew that at this point, my gut feeling was that she was going to take over the film. He also describes spinning because of Lively's power and powerful friends. I think when you are somebody small in the industry, he says, like myself, and you're dealing with a titan like Ms. Lively and some of the most powerful people in the world, which are her best friends, it's a nod to Taylor Swift there. And you're in the situation that I was in. I think it's very reasonable, especially at this point, to be concerned about what's possible and what's not. I was spinning at this point. It is interesting though, because what we're looking at here is power dynamics. And you're looking at, if you're typically looking at a hostile work environment or allegations that might come from that situation, you're probably looking at a boss and an employee, maybe in an office in a 9 to 5 where the roles are very entrenched and defined. But in this, Justin Baldoni offers a different power dynamic. He says, because of your real world position and your real world friends, actually in the grand scheme you are, you have different de facto power. Whereas Blake Lively is saying Justin Baldoni and Jamie Heath were her employers, employer, employee situation. So that's the power dynamic. What do you do with that? Are the jury instructed to think about the power dynamic on paper, which would make her the employee or to look at the real world context?

[Dr. Sean Kent]

I personally think that's the most fascinating thing about this case is, as you mentioned, the power dynamic because Blake Lively is not some B list actress who is just trying to get her life into movies. I mean, she is and Ryan Reynolds are a listers. They are strong, they are powerful. And so when we talk about power dynamic, of course the argument he's going to be making is, what are you talking about? They're the powerful ones. If something was really bothering and or upsetting her, she had more power than I have. And she's going to say, I don't care what you say, that's my boss. He is the employee. That to me is going to be the most interesting. But to answer your question, on what does the judge tell the jury? The judge simply instructs the jury on what the law is. He explains to them what power dynamics are. And then he says it's up to you to make the determination on if the power dynamic made any effect on this situation whatsoever. He won't give examples of the Justin situation or the Blake situation and who's the most powerful. He'll just tell the jury that if there is an uneven situation and power dynamics. You have the right to make the decision based upon that is what he'll tell the jury.

[Anoushka Mutandadouati]

If you had to defend Justin Baldoni on this and convince the jury of the real world power dynamics, what would you say?

[Dr. Sean Kent]

I would look at the jury in closing arguments and. And I would talk about the movies. I would get very personal. Either you or somebody you know have seen a Ryan Reynolds movie. Either you or somebody you know have seen a Blake Lively movie. You know these people. You've seen these people. You've seen them going up and down Hollywood Boulevard. Everybody knows who they are. I would show clips of them in movie prepares. These are two of the most powerful, well respected individuals in the industry. And then I would say, Justin Baldoni was not known until this lawsuit. He was not known until he came into this case. He is trying to build himself into Hollywood. And let's make this clear when we are looking at this case. This is another example of somebody, a Hollywood elite, using their power to bully the small guy, the little fella. And that's what we have here. That's how I would defend him. I would make him the smallest individual that they have ever seen. I'd make him a nobody. And all he is doing is trying to make a movie, a quality movie, and make his name in Hollywood. And he knew what was going on. And these powerful, powerful people are trying to shut him down.

[Anoushka Mutandadouati]

Would you bring. Would you call some of those a list of friends to the stand?

[Dr. Sean Kent]

Yep, absolutely. There would be more subpoenas sent out right now, and they would be angry. I'd have them in the front row. And the thing about subpoenas is what I would do with my subpoenas is I would send subpoenas out and make them for the entire term of court. So they're sitting in the courtroom the entire time. They might not even use them as witnesses. Just sit them in that front row and all the time just candidly look back at them and say, that's who we're dealing with.

[Anoushka Mutandadouati]

I got one more question for you about Diddy. Documentary juror 160. Oh, my goodness. I haven't had so many questions about Diddy in a while. 160. Juror 160 in the documentary. Documentary, if you haven't seen it, expressed that they were familiar with Diddy's nodding. They saw it on making the band. They witnessed the same nodding in the courtroom. They said at times they were making the same facial expression as Diddy when listening to things in court, that they were like that's not believable. She particularly referenced the testimony of Capricorn Clark. The streets are asking, the people have the question, Sean, is this not bordering on that juror being biased and potentially being a fan of Sean Diddy Combs? And could the government use that to say we need a new trial trial?

[Dr. Sean Kent]

0.0 chance this could result in a new trial. We have something in the United States called the Fifth Amendment. The Fifth Amendment protects against double jeopardy. Double jeopardy basically means you cannot be tried for the same offense twice no matter what. The United States of America doesn't have what are called appellate rights. They cannot appeal if a jury finds somebody not guilty. Now, we could have different charges. Let's say Diddy engaged in jury tampering or something of that nature. You can charge him for that. But as far as the underlying charges, no, there is zero chance. Now if it turned out that one of the jurors was a big prosecution fan and they were in the wedding with the prosecutor and they didn't tell anybody and they found him guilty, then did, he would be entitled to a new trial because he has separate rights. But as far as juror 160, it doesn't matter what she says. No new trial is happening for the government because he has jeopardy rights and he should have those.

[Anoushka Mutandadouati]

Well, this is an interesting thing for the Blake Lively trial as well because how do you figure out who, you know, who's the juror's favorite actor on that one? We will be watching it every single day. It's coming around quicker than you think. Keep sending us in what other trials you want us to cover as well. We are obviously listening. Sean, thank you so much for joining us today. I'll let you get back to that real world job that you have. Always a pleasure.

[Dr. Sean Kent]

Thank you so much for having me. Much appreciated.

[Anoushka Mutandadouati]

That was our resident trial attorney Dr. Sean Kent joining us from from South Carolina. And that's it for this episode of Fame Under Fire from BBC Sounds. Make sure you subscribe and turn on your push notifications on BBC Sounds so you never miss a thing. And please tell your friends and your family about us too.

[Katie Razzle]

Hi, I'm Katie razzle and for BBC Radio 4 from Shadow World. This is Anatomy of a Cancellation.

[Anoushka Mutandadouati]

I'm a symbol of a a particular time and an extreme version of Cancel Culture.

[Katie Razzle]

Poet and teacher Kate Clanchy wrote a book about her 30 year teaching career which was initially praised.

[Ray Winstone]

It's a wonderful book.

[Katie Razzle]

But later others said it was racist and deeply problematic.

[Sarah]

The language in this book is so.

[Katie Razzle]

Dehumanizing unjustified cancellation Long overdue reckoning. Subscribe to Shadow One Anatomy of a Cancellation on BBC Sounds.

[Grainger Advertiser]

If you're a maintenance supervisor for a commercial property, you've had to deal with everything from leaky faucets to flickering light bulbs. But nothing's worse than that ancient boiler that's lived in the building since the day it was built 50 years ago. It's enough to make anyone lose their cool. That's where Grainger comes in. With industrial grade products and dependable, fast delivery, Grainger can help with any challenge, from worn out components to everyday necessities. Call click grainger.com or just stop by Granger for the ones who get it done.

[Ray Winstone]

Hello, it's Ray Winstone. I'm here to tell you about my podcast on BBC Radio 4, History's Toughest Heroes. I've got stories about the pioneers, the rebels, the outcasts who define tough.

[History's Toughest Heroes Narrator]

And that was the first time that anybody ever ran a car up that fast with no tires on. It almost feels like your eyeballs are going to come out of your head.

[Ray Winstone]

Tough enough for you? Subscribe to History's Toughest Heroes Wherever you get your podcast.