The drama never ends in Tinseltown! Just when you thought the feud between Justin Baldoni and Blake Lively was dying down, the “Five Feet Apart” director has just dropped a major bombshell. Baldoni has launched a brand-new website, and with it, a scathing timeline of events that sets the record straight on the very public feud that’s been making headlines for months.
For those who may have been living under a rock, the drama began when Lively seemingly took aim at Baldoni’s film “Five Feet Apart” on social media, sparking a heated exchange between the two. But now, Baldoni is firing back with a vengeance, releasing a detailed timeline of events that he claims will “set the record straight” on the whole ordeal.

The Amended Lawsuit: A New Development in the Ongoing Legal Battle

New allegations against Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds have been filed in the amended lawsuit brought by Justin Baldoni’s team. The documents, which were filed in New York federal court, claim that Lively and Reynolds were involved in a collusion with The New York Times to damage Baldoni’s reputation.
The amended complaint alleges that Lively had been working with The New York Times weeks before the article was published in December. The documents state that metadata embedded within the article indicated that the outlet “had already begun building its defamatory Article no later than October 31, 2024.”
The lawsuit claims that “careful observers reported that viewing the HTML source code for the Article revealed references to a ‘message-embed-generator’ that referred [to a] date of ‘2024-10-31.’” The documents suggest that this is evidence that the story was first generated on or before that date.

New Allegations Against Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds
The amended complaint alleges that Lively and Reynolds were involved in a smear campaign against Baldoni, and that they had been working with The New York Times to damage his reputation. The documents claim that Lively and Reynolds had been sending texts and emails to The New York Times, and that they had been providing the outlet with information about Baldoni’s personal life.
The lawsuit claims that Lively and Reynolds had been using their influence and power to try and discredit Baldoni, and that they had been working to create a narrative that would damage his reputation. The documents state that this is a violation of Baldoni’s rights, and that it is a form of defamation.
The Timeline of Relevant Events: A 168-Page Document
The amended complaint includes a 168-page document that outlines the timeline of relevant events in the case. The document includes emails and texts related to the case, and it provides a detailed overview of the events that have led to this point.
The document is a significant addition to the case, as it provides a detailed and comprehensive look at the events that have unfolded. It is clear that the document will be an important piece of evidence in the case, and it will likely be used to support Baldoni’s claims.
The implications of the amended lawsuit and timeline are significant, and they will likely have a major impact on the outcome of the case. The lawsuit alleges that Lively and Reynolds were involved in a smear campaign against Baldoni, and that they had been working with The New York Times to damage his reputation.
The amended complaint includes new allegations against Lively and Reynolds, and it provides a detailed overview of the events that have led to this point. The document is a significant addition to the case, and it will likely be used to support Baldoni’s claims.
The implications of the amended lawsuit and timeline are significant, and they will likely have a major impact on the outcome of the case. The lawsuit alleges that Lively and Reynolds were involved in a smear campaign against Baldoni, and that they had been working with The New York Times to damage his reputation.
The New York Times’ Response and the Role of Metadata
The New York Times has responded to the amended lawsuit, denying the allegations made against it. The outlet’s representative, Danielle Rhoades Ha, said that the lawsuit is “rife with inaccuracies” and that the allegations made against The New York Times are “baseless.”
The New York Times’ response highlights the importance of metadata in the case. Metadata is the data that is embedded in a document or file, and it can provide information about when the document was created, when it was last modified, and who created it.
In this case, the metadata embedded in The New York Times’ article suggests that the outlet had already begun building its defamatory article no later than October 31, 2024. This is important evidence, as it suggests that the article was not a spontaneous response to Lively’s allegations, but rather a carefully planned and executed attack on Baldoni’s reputation.
The Significance of Metadata in the Case
The significance of metadata in the case cannot be overstated. Metadata is a powerful tool, and it can be used to uncover the truth about a document or file. In this case, the metadata embedded in The New York Times’ article provides important evidence that supports Baldoni’s claims.
The metadata suggests that The New York Times had been planning its article for weeks, and that it had been working closely with Lively and Reynolds to create a narrative that would damage Baldoni’s reputation. This is a significant finding, as it suggests that The New York Times was not a neutral observer in the case, but rather a key player in the smear campaign against Baldoni.
What’s Next: The Case Heads to Court
The case is heading to court, and a hearing is scheduled for Monday. The hearing will be an important moment in the case, as it will provide an opportunity for both sides to present their arguments and for the judge to make a decision.
Baldoni’s lawyer, Bryan Freedman, said that the decision to amend the lawsuit was a logical next step due to the overwhelming amount of new proof that has come to light. Freedman said that the fresh evidence corroborates what they knew all along, that due to a blind pursuit of power, Lively and her entire team colluded for months to destroy reputations through a complex web of lies, false accusations, and the manipulation of illicitly received communications.
The case is a significant one, and it will likely have a major impact on the outcome of the case. The lawsuit alleges that Lively and Reynolds were involved in a smear campaign against Baldoni, and that they had been working with The New York Times to damage his reputation.
The case is a reminder that the power of metadata should not be underestimated. Metadata is a powerful tool, and it can be used to uncover the truth about a document or file. In this case, the metadata embedded in The New York Times’ article provides important evidence that supports Baldoni’s claims.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Justin Baldoni’s launch of a new website featuring an amended lawsuit and a “timeline of relevant events” in his ongoing feud with Blake Lively marks a significant turning point in the contentious dispute. The article has shed light on the intricacies of the conflict, detailing the alleged actions and statements that have led to the escalating tension between the two parties. By providing a comprehensive timeline of events, the website aims to set the record straight and clarify the facts surrounding the dispute.
The significance of this development cannot be overstated, as it has far-reaching implications for both parties involved. The lawsuit and subsequent website launch demonstrate the gravity of the situation, underscoring the importance of transparency and accountability in high-profile conflicts. Moreover, the timing of the website’s launch raises questions about the potential motivations behind the move, leaving fans and observers alike wondering what the future holds for the two celebrities.