Justin Baldoni'attorney Brian Friedman Plan to sue "absolutely". Blake Lively on behalf of his client.

Friedman was asked NBC News In an interview Thursday, Jan. 2, he asked Lively, 37, whether he plans to file a lawsuit It ends with us Director Friedman responded, "Of course... yes."

"We plan to release every text message between the two of them," Friedman told the outlet. “We want the truth to come out. We want the documentation to be there. We want people to make up their minds based on the receipts.”

This comes after Baldoni, 40, filed a $250 million lawsuit against The New York Times Tuesday, December 31. The actor and director are suing for defamation New York Times' Coster reported on Lively after she sued him for sexual harassment.

Baldoni was one of 10 plaintiffs the caseThat includes publishers Melissa Nathan And Jennifer Abel as well as It ends with Us producer James Heath And Steve SaraowitzThose who initiate legal proceedings against media outlets.

Baldoni sued the same day The New York Times, Lively officially filed a lawsuit Baldoni, against Nathan & Abel, with Wayfarer Studios in the Southern District of New York.

The lawsuit alleges sexual harassment, retaliation, breach of contract, infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy and lost wages. The claims parallel Lively's complaint filed last week with the California Department of Civil Rights.

Talked about living His legal action through a Saturday, December 21 statement our weekly.

"I hope that my legal action will help pull back the curtain on these horrific retaliatory tactics for those who speak up about misconduct and help protect those who may be targeted."

A New York Times Spokesperson said our weekly in a statement Tuesday, Dec. 31 that the outlet plans to "vigorously defend against the lawsuit."

"The role of an independent news organization is to follow events where they lead," the statement said. “Our story was reported carefully and responsibly. It was based on a review of thousands of pages of original documents, including text messages and emails that we have quoted accurately and at length in the article. These texts and emails were the basis of a discrimination claim filed by Blake Lively in California against Justin Baldoni and his associates."

The statement continued, “In order to address certain inaccuracies in the litigation, while seeking comment from Mr. Baldoni and others, who will be cited in the article, the Times shared the information we sought to disclose, including references to specific text messages and documents, to identify any inaccuracies. , asked to provide additional context and speak to our team. Mr. Baldoni, Wayfarer and others chose not to have a conversation with The Times or address any specific text messages or documents and instead emailed a joint response, which was published in full. (Also, they allegedly withheld their response to the Times by 11:16 p.m. ET on Dec. 20, 2:16 a.m. ET on Dec. 21.)"

In response to Baldoni's lawsuit filing, Lively's attorney said our Tuesday, Dec. 31 that the case was based on a "manifestly false premise."

"Nothing in this case changes anything about Ms. Lively's claims in the California Department of Civil Rights complaint or in her federal complaint," the statement said. "This lawsuit is based on the patently false premise that Ms. Lively's administrative complaint against Wayfarer and others was a sham based on a choice "not to sue Baldoni, Wayfarer" and that "litigation was never her ultimate goal." As demonstrated by the federal complaint filed by Ms. Lively earlier today, the frame of reference in the Wayfarer lawsuit is false Encourage reading in its entirety. We look forward to resolving each of Wayfarer's complaints in court."

Friedman also shared a statement our weeklyPromise to "enroll". The New York Times for its "vicious smear campaign".

“In this vicious smear campaign orchestrated entirely by Blake Lively and her team, The New York Times Obsessed with the whims and fancies of Hollywood's two powerful 'untouchable' elites, using doctored and manipulated texts in disregard of journalistic practice and ethics, and deliberately omitting texts that dispute their chosen PR narrative, it said in a statement. our Tuesday, December 31. “In doing so, they pre-determined the outcome of their story, and aided and abetted their own subversive PR smear campaign designed to revive Lively's self-indulgent public image and counter the organic basis of criticism. Online public. Rich in irony."

He continued: “But make no mistake, because we all got down together The NY Times By no longer allowing them to deceive the public, we will continue this campaign of truth by prosecuting those who have abused their power to try to destroy the lives of my clients. While their side embraces the partial truth, we embrace the whole truth - and we have all the communications to back it up. The people will decide for themselves as they started this first.”