A federal courtroom in New York became an unexpected stage for legal arguments about consent, improvisation, and harassment this week.
Justin Baldoni’s attorneys appeared before U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman on Thursday, seeking dismissal of Blake Lively’s sexual harassment lawsuit stemming from their work on the 2024 film “It Ends With Us.”
The case raises critical questions about boundaries in intimate scenes and what constitutes harassment when cameras are rolling.
Judge Liman will rule on the motion later, but a jury trial is currently scheduled for May.
The Core Legal Argument: Improvisation vs. Harassment
Baldoni’s legal team built their defense around a central premise: any touching between the actors occurred within character interactions, not as gender-based harassment against Lively personally.
Attorney Jonathan Bach opened arguments by noting that Lively agreed to participate in a film featuring what he described as “hot and sexy scenes” that would become “steamy and turbulent.”
Judge Liman immediately challenged this framing, making clear he wasn’t suggesting sexual subject matter gave Baldoni carte blanche to touch Lively however he wanted. Bach agreed, prompting the judge to ask for clarity on where exactly the boundaries lie.
So maybe you can actually help me understand where the lines are.
Bach’s response emphasized that context matters. He characterized any “awkward” moments as artistic choices in pursuit of a particular aesthetic, calling Lively’s complaints “small potatoes” that didn’t constitute sexual harassment.
An Unexpected TV Reference Draws Courtroom Laughter
In attempting to illustrate his point about improvisation during intimate scenes, Bach referenced the HBO Max series “Heated Rivalry” — a gay romance drama with explicit content.
When Judge Liman acknowledged unfamiliarity with the show, laughter rippled through the courtroom.
Bach’s analogy proposed that if male actors improvised during intimate scenes with each other on that show, could there be grounds for gender-based discrimination claims? His argument suggested that improvisation in romantic or sexual scenes shouldn’t automatically qualify as harassment based on gender.
Lively’s Team Centers Consent in Intimate Scenes
Attorney Esra Hudson, representing Lively, countered by establishing that consent remains paramount regardless of a film’s sexual content.
Hudson first noted that key facts remain disputed between parties, requiring jury input rather than dismissal. She cited conflicting accounts of an incident where executive producer Jamey Heath entered a room while Lively was topless.
Heath claims he heard someone tell him to enter. Lively and her hair and makeup artists recall saying “Whoa, whoa, whoa, no, no, no.”
Hudson then focused on allegations that Lively was “kissed, nuzzled and touched” in ways she hadn’t consented to during filming — regardless of knowing intimate scenes were part of her role.
Where Does Consent Begin and End on Set?
Judge Liman pressed Hudson about consent’s practical application during intimate scene filming, particularly regarding improvisation.
Hudson clarified her position wasn’t that improvisation should be prohibited or that actors must approve every individual motion. Rather, consensual improvisation requires conversation about what touching can be expected — exactly why nudity riders and intimacy coordinators have become industry standards.
For improvisation to be considered consensual, there should be a conversation about what kind of touching can be expected.
Though Liman questioned whether every touch-related decision could be decided by a jury — stating “That can’t be right” — Hudson maintained that a subjective standard applied in this case.
The Subjective Standard: What Matters Is How Lively Reacted
Hudson argued that Lively’s physical response during the alleged incidents speaks volumes about consent.
According to Lively’s account, she was:
- Uncomfortable during the touching
- Surprised by Baldoni’s actions
- Physically leaning back — a clear non-verbal signal
These reactions, Hudson contended, demonstrate lack of consent regardless of what a “generally reasonable person” might have done. Whether another person would have reacted similarly should be determined by a jury, not dismissed before trial.
What This Case Means for Hollywood Standards
This legal battle arrives as entertainment industry standards around intimate scenes continue evolving rapidly.
Intimacy coordinators — professionals who choreograph and oversee sexual or romantic scenes — have become increasingly common on film and television sets. They work to ensure both artistic vision and performer comfort, creating frameworks for consent that this case directly examines.
The outcome could establish important precedents about where creative freedom ends and harassment begins when filming intimate content.
What Happens Next
Judge Liman took the dismissal motion under submission without issuing an immediate ruling.
He could choose to dismiss some or all of Lively’s allegations, narrow the scope of claims a jury will consider, or allow the case to proceed to trial as currently structured.
Trial is scheduled for May, when — if the case isn’t dismissed or settled — a jury will weigh these competing narratives about consent, improvisation, and harassment in Hollywood’s intimate scenes.
The legal arguments reveal fundamental tensions between artistic collaboration and personal boundaries, questions that extend far beyond this single case to touch every intimate scene filmed in modern entertainment.