In a major development on June 9, 2025, U.S. District Judge Lewis J. Liman dramatically dismissed Justin Baldoni’s $400 million defamation countersuit against Blake Lively, Ryan Reynolds, Leslie Sloane, Vision PR, Inc., and The New York Times, finding the claims legally insufficient. Baldoni had alleged a coordinated effort to tarnish his reputation during the press cycle for It Ends With Us, also targeting Marvel over purported “Nicepool” content he believed mocked him. With the countersuit struck, the Nicepool subpoena lost legal standing.
At the same time, Judge Liman granted a motion to quash the subpoena issued to Marvel Entertainment and issued a protective order safeguarding Marvel’s “proprietary and highly confidential” Nicepool development documents. As a result, Marvel will remain shielded from disclosing sensitive material detailing the creation of the Nicepool character in Deadpool & Wolverine. These rulings significantly shift the legal landscape of the Baldoni‑Lively drama.
Legal Basis for Dismissal of Baldoni’s Countersuit
Judge Liman ruled that Baldoni had failed to meet the legal threshold required for a defamation claim—specifically, he did not show that the defendants knowingly made false statements or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. In addition, Lively’s CRD statements were deemed legally protected under privilege, while journalists were shielded by the fair‑report privilege. This ruling illustrated the judiciary’s commitment to balancing reputation protection with safeguarding free speech and press privilege.
Motive Behind Baldoni Seeking Nicepool Documents
Baldoni’s legal team issued a litigation-hold letter on January 7, 2025, to Marvel Studios president Kevin Feige and Disney CEO Bob Iger, demanding the preservation of any communications or documents regarding Nicepool. The aim was to demonstrate that Reynolds, Lively, or Marvel intentionally depicted Baldoni through Nicepool to mock him. Baldoni highlighted that Nicepool’s personality traits and the man‑bun hairstyle echoed those associated with him.
Court’s Reasoning on Document Relevance
With Baldoni’s defamation claims dismissed, Judge Liman held that any documents regarding Nicepool were no longer relevant to any active claim or defense. Thus, Marvel’s request to sever its involvement succeeded—protecting them from discovery. The ruling underlines how the dismissal of claims can curtail related discovery, even if initially considered pertinent.
Marvel’s Position on Confidentiality
Marvel emphasized that Nicepool development files are “proprietary and highly confidential” and that forced disclosure could inflict reputational and competitive harm. The company successfully convinced the court through its protective order and the quashing of the subpoena, highlighting the importance of safeguarding creative IP and internal decision-making processes in Hollywood.
Implications for the Lively‑Baldoni Dispute
The dismissal and document protection significantly narrow the legal battlefield. Baldoni still retains the opportunity to amend limited parts of his case by June 23, 2025, but his defamation claims against Lively, Reynolds, and The New York Times have been soundly rejected. Moreover, Marvel’s exit from the case removes a high-profile, high-stakes component of discovery, reducing the scale and drama of pre-trial proceedings scheduled for March 2026.
Broader Context Within Hollywood Legal Trends
This showdown captures growing tensions between creative control, reputational rights, and legal protections in the entertainment landscape. Lawsuits involving actors, studios, press privileges, and IP secrecy are becoming more common, especially amid allegations of harassment or misconduct on film sets. Marvel’s legal victory may serve as a precedent for protecting confidential materials—even in high-profile defamation and countersuit claims.
Precedent for Press and IP Protections
Judge Liman reaffirmed the strength of protected speech and journalistic freedom by affirming the fair-report privilege for The New York Times. Additionally, Lively’s CRD filings remain shielded by privileged status. Finally, Marvel’s document protection reinforces studio rights to secure internal creative files against broad discovery requests—absent a compelling legal basis.
What Remains Ahead in March 2026 Trial
Despite the windfall for Marvel and Lively, several major issues remain. The main lawsuit—Lively vs. Baldoni and Wayfarer—will proceed to trial in March 2026. Pending claims include sexual harassment and hostile work environment allegations made by Lively. Baldoni retains a limited path to amend claims of contract interference by June 23. The court may also grant requests for attorneys’ fees and punitive damages in Lively’s favor.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why did the judge dismiss Baldoni’s lawsuit?
The court found insufficient evidence that the defendants knowingly spread false statements or acted recklessly. Lively’s CRD filing was legally privileged, and press reports invoked fair‑report protections.
What role did Marvel play in the case?
Marvel was subpoenaed for documents concerning Nicepool, a character Baldoni believes embodied a mockery of him. After the countersuit was dismissed, Marvel was removed and protected from disclosure.
What are Nicepool documents, and why were they sensitive?
They include internal Marvel/Disney creative communications, pitch notes, and storyboards for Nicepool. Marvel argued these are proprietary and that revealing them could cause competitive and reputational harm.
Can Baldoni appeal or amend his claims?
Baldoni may amend parts of his suit (contract interference claims) until June 23, 2025, but his principal defamation counts are dismissed with prejudice.
How does this affect the main Lively vs. Baldoni case?
The cancellation of the countersuit removes discovery ties to Marvel but leaves Lively’s harassment and retaliation claims intact and on track for a March 2026 trial .
What legal protections allowed Marvel to maintain secrecy?
The court invoked protective order authority and quashed Baldoni’s subpoena on the grounds that the information was irrelevant post-dismissal.
Did the judge discuss Marvel’s creation of Nicepool?
No. The term “Nicepool” was only referenced to explain why Baldoni sought documents. The court didn’t evaluate the creative content itself.
Why might Baldoni still pursue other legal routes?
He may seek damages for contract and tort claims or possibly appeal the defamation dismissal, though his options appear limited. His path forward is narrow post-June 23 deadline.
Conclusion
Judge Liman’s rulings on June 9, 2025, dismissing Justin Baldoni’s countersuit and quashing Marvel’s subpoena protect both free speech and creative IP. With Nicepool’s discovery now off the table, the spotlight turns to Lively’s original claims and Baldoni’s limited amendment window. As the March 2026 trial approaches, Hollywood will watch how this case shapes future disputes over defamation, harassment, and IP confidentiality in high‑profile legal battles.