1. Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (MJOP)

Baldoni’s lawyers have filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (MJOP), a powerful legal tactic designed to end the lawsuit quickly.

The Goal: The motion asks the judge to dismiss the case with prejudice. Dismissal with prejudice means Lively would be permanently blocked from refiling her lawsuit, making the case legally dead forever.
The Argument: The motion argues that even if the judge accepts every single allegation in Lively’s complaint as true, those allegations still do not meet the legal definition for the claims she is making (e.g., retaliation). They contend her case is built on “drama” and emotional claims rather than sufficient legal substance.
The Impact: If the motion succeeds, there will be no need for discovery, meaning private communications (texts, emails, documents) would likely never be made public, giving Baldoni a quiet but complete victory.

2. The Jurisdiction Battle (California vs. New York Law)

The legal dispute has shifted to a fight over which state’s laws should govern the case—a battle over jurisdiction and geography.

The Conflict: Lively filed her lawsuit in California, where she resides, but Baldoni’s team argues that most of the alleged incidents occurred on the East Coast (New York and New Jersey).
The Difference in Law:

California Law: Known for being broad and expansive regarding workplace protection, where even subtle forms of exclusion or pressure can be deemed retaliation.
New York Law: Generally takes a narrower, more traditional approach, requiring stronger proof of concrete harm.

The Technical Trap: Baldoni’s team is aggressively pushing for New York law or arguing that, under California law, Lively failed a procedural step (such as filing a complaint with the state’s labor board before suing). A ruling in Baldoni’s favor on jurisdiction could cause Lively’s entire case to collapse on a technicality, regardless of the facts.

3. Retaliation vs. “Hollywood PR”

Baldoni’s team is fundamentally challenging Lively’s core claim by reframing the alleged smear campaign as standard industry practice.

The Defense: They argue that the negative headlines and chatter Lively claims were “retaliation” were nothing more than “business as usual”—a kind of orchestrated Hollywood publicity designed to build hype for the film It Ends With Us.
The Legal Line: This argument attempts to place Baldoni’s actions under free speech protections. If the judge views the comments and stories as part of a professional marketing strategy (PR), the legal burden for proving retaliation becomes significantly higher. If the court agrees it was just “PR spun into drama,” the retaliation claim could fail.
Lively’s View: Lively maintains that the publicity was not banter, but a calculated, targeted effort to “discredit” and “punish” her for speaking out, crossing the line from promotion into harassment.