You’re watching what was once a typical courtroom drama turn into something much murkier. After Judge Lewis J. Liman dismissed Justin Baldoni’s defamation case against Blake Lively, online sleuths didn’t just let the ruling go. They began digging, and what they discovered has stirred whispers of a possible conflict of interest. With internet detectives laying out timelines, family ties, and stock portfolios, you’re now faced with a larger question: was this case truly impartial?
Judge Liman Sides With Lively And Surprises Legal Experts
On Monday, the judge presiding over the case made a decision that strongly favored Blake Lively. Judge Liman ruled that her allegations of sexual harassment, which were part of an official lawsuit, are legally protected. That means they are not subject to defamation claims. The ruling was swift, and it left some observers stunned. Trial attorney Omar Serrato expressed that he didn’t expect such a rapid judgment. “I thought Judge Liman would reserve judgement until the conclusion of discovery … I was surprised. It certainly feels like it may be in danger of appellate review,” he told DailyMail.com.
While many accepted the decision as legally sound, others weren’t so sure. A handful of vocal critics—many who appear to support Baldoni—started searching for deeper explanations. Their goal wasn’t just to question the ruling but to explore if Judge Liman had any potential bias. What they found has since lit up online forums with speculation and debate. These findings don’t confirm wrongdoing, but they do raise questions about what should have been disclosed.
Family Ties Between Hollywood And The Bench
As you learn more, one of the first connections being pointed out is family-based. Judge Liman isn’t just a federal judge—he’s also the brother of director Doug Liman. You’ll probably recognize Doug’s work on hit films like Mr. & Mrs. Smith, The Bourne Identity, and Edge of Tomorrow. He’s also known for directing the pilot of The OC. While Doug hasn’t worked directly with Blake Lively, he did produce a 2008 campaign ad for Barack Obama on behalf of MoveOn.org. And featured in that ad? Blake Lively and her then-boyfriend Penn Badgley.
That’s where the speculation begins. The critics aren’t suggesting Doug and Blake are close friends. But they are pointing out that Judge Liman’s family has intersected with Lively’s career. That alone isn’t a formal conflict of interest, but some argue it creates an appearance of familiarity. What’s more concerning to some is that this connection was never disclosed during the trial proceedings. Whether that omission matters legally is still unclear.
Investment Links Raise Further Questions
Critics didn’t stop with family ties. They began digging through Judge Liman’s past employment history and stock disclosures. After law school, Liman worked at Cravath, Swaine, & Moore—now simply Cravath—where he was employed from 1991 to 1994. During his time there, he helped manage portfolios involving media and telecommunications companies. He eventually began investing in some of them, including Time Warner. That company, as you know, owns or collaborates with multiple media properties—including the CW. The CW, of course, is where Blake Lively rose to fame as Serena van der Woodsen in Gossip Girl.
According to some online voices, this creates a potential financial motive. The theory is that Liman’s investments could have given him a reason to see Blake Lively remain in public favor. However, this line of thought comes with a lot of assumptions. Time Warner’s relationship with Gossip Girl ended years ago, and Lively’s role hasn’t aired in over a decade. Whether the judge benefits financially from Blake’s popularity today remains unclear.
Deep Corporate Connections Extend To Ryan Reynolds
But that’s not where the web of connections ends. Liman’s disclosures from 2018 revealed that he had invested between $100,000 and $250,000 in CBS. CBS later merged with Paramount Global, which currently has a production deal with Ryan Reynolds—Blake’s husband. That deal reportedly runs through December 2026, covering the period after Lively and Baldoni’s trial begins in March 2026. That timing caught attention. Internet critics argue this adds another layer to potential financial entanglements.
Adding to the speculation, T-Mobile—which recently bought Reynolds’ Mint Mobile for $1.35 billion—also connects back to Liman. While working at the law firm Cleary Gottlieb Steen and Hamilton, Liman helped oversee the multi-billion dollar merger between Sprint and T-Mobile. This merger ultimately made T-Mobile Reynolds’ business partner. To critics, these links keep piling up, forming a network of indirect financial and professional ties to both Reynolds and Lively.
Past Clients Include Disney And Discovery Networks
The connections don’t end there. While at his former law firm, Liman also represented Disney and 21st Century Fox—two studios responsible for producing Ryan Reynolds’ Deadpool films. That’s another example of overlap between Liman’s work history and the Reynolds-Lively brand. Critics are highlighting this not as proof of bias but as one more reason to question whether the judge should have recused himself from the case.
There’s also the matter of Judge Liman’s reported stake in Discovery. That’s the network responsible for airing In Dispute: Lively v Baldoni, a recent documentary covering the lawsuit. Critics argue the documentary portrayed Blake in a favorable light. While there’s no rule that says a judge can’t own stock in a media company, the overlap in content and timing is raising some eyebrows. If you’re trying to connect dots, this one stands out.
Is It Conflict Or Coincidence? You Decide
No one has proven that Judge Liman acted improperly. What people are saying is that there are a lot of loose threads—family ties, media exposure, and stock ownership—that could create an appearance of bias. Critics suggest Liman may have “put his thumb on the scale” for Blake Lively, even if unintentionally. These aren’t accusations being shouted from rooftops, but they’re certainly being whispered in corners of the internet.
You might be wondering just how much weight a judge’s past investments and family history should carry in a case like this. It’s true that Lively and Reynolds have worked with just about every major studio. That means judges with blue-chip stock portfolios will always have some degree of crossover. If owning shares in companies like Time Warner, Disney, or Paramount disqualifies someone from presiding over a case, the pool of eligible judges shrinks dramatically.
Also, it’s worth noting that the disclosures being cited by critics date back to 2018. There’s no public confirmation that Liman still holds any of these investments. Without current data, the accusations remain speculative at best. But the fact that these conversations are happening at all means people are watching this trial closely.
Do you believe these connections create a real conflict of interest for Judge Liman? Let us know in the comments on Facebook.
Via: Perez Hilton
