**Opposition to Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 1 To Preclude Evidence of the Alleged Bad Experiences of Other Women**

Lively argues that evidence of other women's negative experiences with the defendants is essential to prove her own "reasonable belief" that unlawful conduct was occurring.

**Jenny Slate: "**Is an eye witness that experienced sexually harassing and gendered conduct by Baldoni and Heath on set."

**Isabela Ferrer:** " Experienced inappropriate and sexualised conduct on the set "

**Alex Saks:** Testified to a few instances where Baldoni yelled at her onset, she also asked Jamey Heath to approve an investigation into the on set conduct.  

**Christy Hall:** She told Saks that Baldoni did not respect her female voice on set and she refused to do any press or be associated with him. 

**Colleen Hoover:** Developed her own independent concerns due to Baldoni's conduct and editorial decisions. She felt Marginalised and exploited by Baldoni and, after witnessing Baldoni and Heath disparage Lively in May, 2024, chose to distance herself from them permanently. 

**Claire Ayoub:** Had similar experiences with Baldoni on set of her own film. Ayoub declared under oath that Baldoni was verbally abusive to her, prompting her to bar him from set and promo of the movie. She was also a percipient witness to statements made by Sarowitz, threatening to target Lively and her husband. 

**Liz Plank:** Knows and worked with the defendants on a podcast, she warned Blake before taking the role on IEWU. She said working with Baldoni was "one of the worst days of her life." Blake also confided in her while filming, so she has relevant knowledge of the situation. 

**B. The Evidence is Essential to Establishing Lively’s Reasonable Belief**

Lively still must show both that she subjectively believed she was opposing unlawful conduct, and that her belief was objectively reasonable. 

**Opposition to Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 2 To Preclude Evidence of Alleged Weight-Related Comments**

Defendants seek to preclude evidence that Baldoni made comments about Lively's weight to her personal trainer. The motion should be denied for 3 reasons:

**Firstly,** Baldoni's weight related comments are plainly relevant to Lively's FEHA retaliation claim, specifically, to whether she reasonably and in good faith believed she was opposing unlawful conduct. Lively argues, in retaliation cases, courts in the Second Circuit routinely permit evidence concerning the conduct and circumstances that led the plaintiff to engage in protected activity. 

**Second,** The evidence is offered for a proper, non‑propensity purpose: to establish Lively’s state of mind – namely, her good‑faith belief that she was opposing conduct prohibited by FEHA – as well as Defendants’ retaliatory motive and intent. 

**Finally,**  Defendants’ cursory Rule 403 arguments fail to show that the probative value of this evidence is substantially outweighed by any risk of unfair prejudice, confusion, or delay. Far from diverting the jury’s attention, this evidence provides necessary context for evaluating both her protected activity and Defendants’ alleged retaliation. 

**Opposition to Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 3 To Preclude Evidence Concerning Alleged Sexual Assault**

Lively opposes excluding evidence concerning alleged sexual assault, as it relates to the broader context of the workplace environment. 

**Opposition to Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 4 To Preclude All References To Other Clients Of Melissa Nathan and Jed Wallace**

Lively argues against precluding references to other clients of these individuals, likely to show patterns of behavior or industry standards. She goes on to say Wallace and Nathan testified under oath that they did not and would not know how to manipulate online narratives or conduct digital campaigns against Lively. However, Lively has evidence (texts and emails) that contradicts their testimony. 

**Opposition to Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 5 To Preclude Evidence and Argument Relating to Pretrial Filings And the Court’s Ruling**

Lively contends that the jury should be allowed to hear about certain pretrial filings and the court's previous rulings to understand the case's history.

**Opposition to Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 6 To Preclude References To Other Lawsuits Involving Defendants, The Dismissed Defendants, Or Their Counsel**

She opposes the exclusion of references to other lawsuits involving the defendants, arguing they are relevant to showing a pattern of conduct. Lively does not object to the Court excluding references to Jones or discussions about the merits of the Norman and Smith cases, with some slight modifications to the Defendants’ request. Lively disagrees that the Court should exclude references to any other lawsuits involving Nathan.

**Opposition To Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 7 To Preclude Any Reference to a Surreptitious Recording of Nonparty Steve Sarowitz**

Lively opposes the exclusion of the secret recording of Steve Sarowitz. She argues the jury are entitled to hear and interpret Sarowitz promise that if Lively and Reynolds "ever cross the line, ever, then i will go after them." Lively is entitled to argue that this statement was evidence of his plan, intent, or motive to engage in unlawful retaliation, that the court has already recognised. 

**Opposition to Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 8 To Preclude Evidence Of Steve Sarowitz’s Wealth, Financial Resources, And The Payment Of Defendants’ Legal Fees**

Lively argues that Sarowitz's financial resources and his payment of the defendants' legal fees are relevant to the case. She says Sarowitz referenced his wealth in the context of threatening her, and a jury is entitled to consider the evidence. 

 **Opposition to Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 9 To Preclude Evidence Relating to Bryan Freedman** 

Lively argues that evidence relating to attorney Bryan Freedman should be admitted. She says the court referenced in it's summary judgement order, one piece of important evidence reflecting "steps to harm" Lively's reputation was the group chat that Freedman started amongst his colleagues, clients, and influencer Sage Steele to discuss how to 'use' Steele to create a video that 'can go viral' with the appearance of being "organic." Lively mentions that Freedman also attempted to intimidate Jenny Slate from participating in Lively's case, going as far as to threaten media outlets with patently frivolous lawsuits if they do not bend to his demands. Lively says that Freedman's apparent regret regarding his own words and conduct do not provide a basis to exclude demonstrably relevant information. 

**Opposition to Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 10 To Preclude Evidence And Argument Concerning Retaliation In Anticipation Of Future Protected Activity**

Lively argues their motion incorrectly asserts that retaliation can only be based on past protected activity. but that is not the law under California FEHA, which governs her retaliation claims. California courts have expressly recognized that “FEHA protects employees against preemptive retaliation.” Steele v. Youthful Offender Parole Bd., 162 Cal. App. 4th 1241, 1255 (2008). Indeed, adopting the limitation Defendants urge here “would create a perverse incentive” for employers to retaliate against employees before they have an opportunity to complain or oppose unlawful conduct, or file claims regarding FEHA violations. 

**Opposition to Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 11 To Preclude Lively’s Prior Descriptions Of Her Experience**

Defendants seek to preclude evidence and testimony concerning Lively's communications to others about her "objections and experiences on set" on relevance and hearsay grounds. The motion should be denied for 3 reasons:

1. The evidence identified by Defendants goes to a key issue to be presented to the jury—specifically, Lively’s reasonable, good faith belief that she was subject to unlawful harassment and Defendants’ defenses to the same (see Dkt. No. 1273, at 106-16; see also id. at 108-16 (discussing the inappropriate acts identified by Lively))—and is admissible for non Case 1:24-cv-10049-LJL Document 1364 Filed 04/17/26 Page 57 of 103 45 hearsay purposes.

2. Lively is pointing out that defendants have repeatedly claimed that she fabricated allegations, she made them up to gain control of the film, and her claims are false and illogical. She argues that the defendants can't spend months claiming she fabricated everything and then try to block the very evidence that shows she didn't. 

3. Lively says Motion in Limine no11 should be denied because its too early for the judge to decide whether prior consistent statements are admissable. 

**Opposition to Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 12 To Preclude Evidence Concerning Remedial Measures Taken By Defendants**

Lively opposes Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 12 by arguing that Federal Rule of Evidence 407 does not apply to the Contract Rider Agreement (CRA) or Nudity Rider because both were executed before the alleged harm (the retaliatory campaign), whereas Rule 407 only covers measures taken after an injury. She further contends that these agreements are contracts, not remedial measures, since they do not represent voluntary safety changes intended to prevent prior harm. Therefore, Defendants’ attempt to exclude them under Rule 407 is legally unsupported and the motion should be denied. 

**Opposition to Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 13 To Preclude Lively From Offering Improper Lay Opinion**

**A. The Court Should Deny MIL No. 13’s Attempt To Exclude Testimony About Third Parties’ Subjective Beliefs Whether Defendants’ Conduct Was Improper.**

Lively argues that non-expert witnesses (lay witnesses) should be allowed to testify about their subjective beliefs regarding the defendants' conduct, the quality of the movie's different edits, and her character. “When a lay witness has particularized knowledge by virtue of her experience, she may testify  even if the subject matter is specialised or technical-because the testimony is based upon a lay person’s personal knowledge rather than on specialised knowledge within the scope of Rule 702.

**B. The Court Should Deny MIL No. 13’s Attempt To Exclude Testimony About Third Parties’ Subjective Beliefs That The Cut Of The Movie Lively Helped Edit Was Better Than Baldoni’s Version** 

Lively argues that if defendants are allowed to claim that she pressured Sony into releasing her version of the movie, Lively must also be allowed to present evidence showing the real reason, namely, that Sony chose her version because it was widely viewed as the better cut. She further contends that this evidence should not be excluded under FRCP 701 because the testimony reflects witnesses first hand perceptions and state of mind at the time, not improper opinion. 

**C. The Court Should Deny MIL No. 13’s Attempt To Exclude Testimony About Third Parties’ Subjective Beliefs About Lively’s Character**

Lively argues that testimony from third parties like Jenny Slate and Colleen Hoover praising her character should not be excluded because it is not improper character evidence under FRCP 404(a), nor inadmissable lay opinion. Instead, these statements are offered to show how she was actually perceived by her co-workers at the time, directly countering defendants claims that she was difficult or caused issues on set. 

**Opposition to Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 14 To Preclude Speculative Evidence About The Use Of “Bots"**

Lively argues that evidence about alleged “bots” is not being offered to prove whether bots were actually used, but rather to show the state of mind and contemporaneous impressions of witnesses at the time. Because of that, the evidence is not hearsay or improper speculation, it reflects what people involved were thinking and perceiving during the events in question. She also points out that Defendants cannot selectively exclude this evidence while relying on their own statements to suggest the opposite, making the testimony relevant and admissible for context rather than truth.

**Opposition to Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 15 To Preclude Evidence Concerning The Following Irrelevant Topics**

Lively opposes MIL No. 15 by arguing that Defendants’ request to exclude nine broad categories of evidence should be denied because it is too vague, clearly relevant, and duplicative. She contends the motion fails to identify specific evidence or provide meaningful arguments, which alone justifies denial. She further argues that the challenged evidence is relevant under Federal Rule of Evidence 401 and not excludable under Federal Rule of Evidence 403, as it relates directly to issues in the case, including her state of mind and the impact of events on her business. Finally, she notes the motion overlaps with a separate Daubert challenge, making it redundant and procedurally improper.

**Opposition to Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 16 To Preclude Evidence and Argument of Reputational Harm Damages**

Lively argues that Defendants are improperly trying to exclude her reputational damages by framing it as a discovery failure under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(A)(iii) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1). She contends this argument fails because reputational harm is a **noneconomic injury**, which courts recognize cannot always be precisely calculated in numeric terms. Moreover, she maintains that she has in fact provided sufficient disclosures and expert analysis quantifying that harm, meaning there is no basis to impose the severe sanction of excluding the evidence. 

 **Opposition to Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 17 To Preclude Evidence And Argument Relating To Plaintiff’s Allegedly Lost Profits And Lost Royalties**

Lively argues that Defendants are wrongly trying to block evidence of her share of lost profits by confusing legal standing with recoverable damages. She contends the alleged retaliatory campaign targeted her personal reputation, which in turn harmed the businesses she owns through LOL HATA, meaning the injury is hers and she can recover those losses as economic damages under her claims. Even if the court were to find she cannot directly recover lost profits, she argues the evidence should still be admitted because it helps show the value of her brand and reputation, making it relevant under Federal Rule of Evidence 401 for assessing damages.

 **Opposition to Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 18 To Preclude Evidence Of Emotional Distress Damages Beyond “Garden Variety” Emotional Distress Damages**

Lively argues that Defendants improperly seek to limit both the evidence and amount of her emotional distress damages. She contends the court has already ruled that her evidence is not restricted to her own testimony, allowing her to present broader supporting proof. She also challenges Defendants’ attempt to cap damages at $30,000, arguing there is no legal basis to arbitrarily limit recovery for emotional harm, particularly where the distress stems from alleged retaliation and can be supported by multiple forms of evidence.

**Opposition to Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 19 To Bifurcate The Issue Of Punitive Damages**

Lively argues that Defendants’ request to split (bifurcate) punitive damages into a separate phase of trial should be denied because bifurcation is rare and disfavored under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(b). She contends that courts typically allow juries to consider liability and punitive damages together, as doing so is more efficient and avoids unnecessary delay and expense. Here, she argues Defendants have failed to meet their burden to justify bifurcation, especially since it would prolong an already lengthy trial and create additional inconvenience for both the parties and the court.

Read the full filing here:https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1364.0.pdf

Lively's Opposition to Wayfarer's Motion In Limine