Blake Lively agreed to settle her claims against Justin Baldoni‘s Wayfarer Studios on Monday, but her legal battle continues in the form of a motion for attorney fees resulting from Baldoni’s failed defamation suit against her.
Lively filed the motion last September under a 2023 California law that seeks to protect sexual abuse accusers from “weaponised” defamation suits. That motion was the one piece of the legal feud left unresolved by the settlement.
Her lawyer, Sigrid McCawley, said Thursday that the motion gives Lively a platform to advocate on behalf of those who face the threat of defamation suits for speaking out.
“It allows her to help pave the way here,” McCawley told Variety. “This is really a space where she’s been able to do some great good for survivors, and she wants to continue that work. This is about so much more to her.”
Lively alleged that Baldoni, her co-star and director in the 2024 film “It Ends With Us,” sexually harassed her on set and, after she complained, retaliated against her in the form of a digital whisper campaign. Judge Lewis Liman threw out 10 of Lively’s 13 claims last month, and the two sides issued a joint statement on Monday in lieu of taking the remaining claims to a federal trial.
“We acknowledge the process presented challenges and recognise concerns raised by Ms. Lively deserved to be heard,” they said. “We remain firmly committed to workplaces free of improprieties and unproductive environments. It is our sincere hope that this brings closure and allows all involved to move forward constructively and in peace, including a respectful environment online.”
Baldoni’s team, led by Bryan Freedman, has since taken a victory lap in a series of YouTube appearances, calling the deal a win for Baldoni. Lively’s attorneys issued their own statement on Thursday morning, calling the settlement “a resounding victory for Blake Lively.”
Love Film & TV?
Get your daily dose of everything happening in music, film and TV in Australia and abroad.
Though any fee award remains speculative, her side noted that Baldoni’s lawyers had agreed to abide by Liman’s ruling and will not appeal.
“It is a significant victory in that regard,” McCawley said. “It positions her in a way where she can continue doing what she was trying to do, which is to expose the significant retaliatory conduct of these parties.”
Baldoni’s side challenged that interpretation, noting that Lively’s harassment and defamation claims were dismissed by the judge and that she has since dropped the remaining retaliation and breach of contract claims in the settlement.
“This case started with her seeking $300 million and seeking a sexual harassment claim against Justin Baldoni and (Wayfarer CEO) Jamie Heath,” Freedman told Variety. “On April 2 that was gone… That’s when the victory happened. I’m not sure what we’re arguing about at this point.”
Lively’s side argues that they have already established the points required to claim damages and attorney fees under the California law, known as the Protecting Survivors from Weaponized Defamation Lawsuits Act. The law requires that the sex abuse accuser have a “reasonable basis” for making her claims. By agreeing to a joint statement acknowledging that Lively’s allegations “deserved to be heard,” her team argues that Baldoni’s side has already conceded the point.
Baldoni’s team has argued that the law should not apply because the conduct at issue took place in New York and New Jersey — not California. Lively’s team has argued that her original administrative complaint was filed with the California Department of Civil Rights, and that therefore the California law does apply.
Lively is also said to be advocating for the Speak Your Truth Act, a pending bill in the New York State Legislature that would mirror the California law.
Both sides are expected to offer additional briefing on the motion. If he finds it warranted, Liman could order a hearing to determine damages, at which experts and perhaps even Lively might testify.
“This was a horrific thing she had to live through, and she’s been so brave,” McCawley said. “This is really the icing on the cake in so many ways.”
Freedman was dismissive of that notion.
“This is just a ministerial function of whether someone is going to get fees or not,” he said. “My assumption would be that Judge Liman has much more important things on the docket than holding an evidentiary hearing.”
From Variety US