Blake Lively won a partial victory on Friday, as a judge ordered Wayfarer Studios to pay her attorneys’ fees for having to defend against Justin Baldoni‘s failed defamation suit.
The judge, Lewis Liman, ruled that Lively was entitled to recover her defense costs under a 2023 California law meant to protect sexual abuse accusers from retaliatory defamation suits.
Liman, however, denied Lively’s motion for triple damages and punitive damages, finding that those remedies are not available under federal law.
The “It Ends With Us” co-stars had previously settled all other disputes in their protracted and costly legal war, just two weeks before the case was due to go to trial in federal court in New York. The only loose end was Lively’s fee motion under the Protecting Survivors from Weaponized Defamation Lawsuits Act.
Lively had accused Baldoni, who also directed the 2024 film, of sexually harassing her on set and of retaliating against her for complaining about it with an online whisper campaign meant to tarnish her reputation.
Baldoni and his Wayfarer Studios allies fired back with a defamation suit, accusing Lively of manufacturing false claims of harassment in order to seize control of the film. Baldoni’s lawsuit was dismissed a year ago, as the judge found that Lively’s allegations were protected under the litigation privilege.
Lively then filed a motion for attorneys fees, triple damages, and punitive damages under the California law. That motion was fully briefed and awaiting a ruling when the case settled in May, with Lively receiving nothing for her claims.
Love Film & TV?
Get your daily dose of everything happening in music, film and TV in Australia and abroad.
As part of the settlement, both sides agreed to abide by Liman’s ruling on the fee motion and not to appeal.
In a statement from her attorneys, Esra Hudson and Michael Gottlieb, Lively’s team declared victory.
“Blake Lively won her motion under Civil Code Section 47.1,” they wrote. “Today’s ruling makes it clear that Ms. Lively brought her claims in good faith, that there was no evidence she acted with malice, and that she is the prevailing defendant under Section 47.1. The Court is awarding Ms. Lively attorneys’ fees and costs and has explained that a prevailing defendant under Section 47.1 may seek damages using different procedural mechanisms. The parties’ settlement agreement expressly preserves Ms. Lively’s rights to obtain those damages. Ms. Lively is gratified that her lawsuit shows how Section 47.1 and laws like it create a path for survivors to hold accountable those who weaponize online attacks and retaliatory lawsuits to intimidate and silence survivors.”
Baldoni’s attorney, Bryan Freedman, countered that 10 of Lively’s 13 claims had been thrown out prior to the settlement, and that she had received nothing in exchange for dropping the three remaining claims. He said she that she had then “pivoted to exploit a California law that was established to protect real victims in what proved to be a fruitless mission to obtain damages.”
“Once again, she failed,” Freedman said in a statement. “Ms. Lively was only awarded limited attorney fees for a single claim as part of a case that lasted only a matter of months, nothing more. Throughout this process, innocent people had their reputations unfairly tarnished. There was no sexual harassment. There was no retaliation. There was no smear campaign. The court recognized it, the record reflects it, and we have maintained it from the very beginning. We would not hesitate to stand up for the truth again.”
From Variety US