The New York Times has filed a lawsuit in New York state court seeking to recover more than $150,000 in attorney’s fees and costs from Justin Baldoni’s production company, Wayfarer Studios, after defeating defamation claims earlier this year. The Times argues the prior case was a baseless Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, or SLAPP, brought to intimidate and punish its reporting on matters of public interest.

In the new complaint, filed September 30 in New York County Supreme Court, the Times contends that Wayfarer’s defamation action “lacked any basis in fact or law” and forced the newspaper to spend substantial resources in its defense. Under New York’s anti-SLAPP law, defendants who prevail in meritless suits targeting free speech may recover damages, including attorney’s fees.

The dispute traces back to a December 21, 2024, article and video published by the Times that reported on actor Blake Lively’s complaint to the California Civil Rights Department. Lively accused Baldoni, who directed the film It Ends With Us, and Wayfarer CEO Jamey Heath of sexual harassment and workplace retaliation. The Times’ reporting, based on official filings and supporting documents, also cited communications suggesting Baldoni and Heath engaged a crisis public relations manager to discredit Lively.

Wayfarer and its affiliates responded by suing the Times for defamation, false light, fraud, and breach of implied contract. They argued the paper defamed the company by suggesting Baldoni and Heath orchestrated a smear campaign, and claimed the Times violated an agreement by publishing its story before a requested comment deadline.

On June 9, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed all claims against the Times with prejudice. Judge Lewis J. Liman ruled that the defamation claim failed because the reporting was protected under New York’s fair report privilege, which shields journalists when reporting on official documents and proceedings. The court also found no evidence that the Times acted with actual malice, a necessary element for defamation involving public figures. The opinion noted that the underlying complaint and documents contained “numerous messages strongly suggesting” Wayfarer and its executives sought to spread negative stories about Lively, making the Times’ reporting reasonable.

The court separately held that New York does not recognize a false light cause of action, rejecting that claim outright. As for fraud and breach of implied contract, the court found the claims “meritless,” concluding that no enforceable promise was made in the Times’ pre-publication email to Wayfarer. The judge noted that Wayfarer’s attorney had, in fact, provided a comment before publication and that his response was included in the article.

The Times now seeks reimbursement of its legal fees and other relief, saying Wayfarer’s claims were filed to harass and intimidate rather than to pursue legitimate legal remedies.