Justin Baldoni Asks Judge to Deny or ‘Substantially Reduce’ Blake Lively’s $8 Million Legal Fee Request

**Justin Baldoni Contests Blake Lively’s $8 Million Legal Fee Claim**

In an ongoing legal saga, Justin Baldoni is contesting Blake Lively’s motion for over £8 million in attorneys’ fees and litigation costs. The request, submitted to a federal judge on July 13, is in response to a ruling by Judge Lewis J. Liman that allowed Lively to pursue such compensation after dismissing Baldoni’s defamation claims against her. Baldoni’s legal team has described Lively’s appeal as “anything but a typical fee motion.”

The dispute has surfaced against the backdrop of larger personal and legal tensions. Baldoni, 42, has initiated a motion to either deny or substantially reduce Lively’s financial request, alleging that her legal representation has charged “excessive” hourly rates. In their filing, Baldoni and his production company, Wayfarer Studios, highlighted the significant discrepancies between Lively’s claim and that of The New York Times, which sought only $181,622.70 for attorney fees in a related defamation case.

This legal battle began when Baldoni initiated a $250 million lawsuit against The New York Times, claiming that the publication had defamed him by suggesting his team had orchestrated a “smear campaign” against Lively. Following the dismissal of his claims against the actress, the current focus has shifted to the financial implications of the case.

Baldoni’s filing argues that the representation of Lively was excessively overstaffed, with numerous lawyers present at hearings. The lawyers involved accumulated a staggering 7,070.20 billable hours, overseen by 82 individuals. This level of billing, he asserts, is approximately 20 times the amount typically approved in similar high-profile defamation cases, raising questions about its legitimacy.

Baldoni’s legal team further claims that a superficial review of Lively’s submission reveals multiple charges for various lawyers at identical hearings, unnecessary internal meetings, and inflated fees for research and online investigations. They argue that these practices point to a level of inefficiency and lack of necessity in the approach taken by Lively’s legal team.

In addition to the attorneys’ fees, Lively, 38, is also pursuing an excess of £539,514.01 in costs and expenses, which Baldoni’s team has labelled as “a whopping” amount. The filing painstakingly critiques Lively’s arguments, asserting that they fail to provide adequate evidence validating the reasonableness of her requested fees. Baldoni’s motion requests that the court entirely deny Lively’s claim or, at the very least, drastically reduce it, using the New York Times’ figure as a benchmark.

The tensions escalated following a lawsuit launched by Lively against Baldoni in December 2024, to which he responded with a countersuit involving her husband, Ryan Reynolds, seeking £400 million. However, Judge Liman dismissed this countersuit in June 2025, compounding the contentious nature of this legal affair.

In the wake of these dismissals, Lively sought to secure compensation for her legal expenses under California Civil Code Section 47.1, citing the jurisdiction’s requirements given the circumstances of the case. Her request for $7,495,526.87 in attorneys’ fees stems from the extensive legal work performed by her team from January to June 2025, covering the entirety of Baldoni’s countersuit.

Baldoni has recently addressed the media more publicly regarding the ordeal, alongside his wife, Emily, through a social media video. In this clip, the couple expressed gratitude towards their supporters while also acknowledging the pain and trauma they have endured during this period, which they claim has made public commentary challenging.

Lively’s legal representatives have stated that the financial claims underscore more than just reimbursement; they aim to establish a precedent regarding the use of lawsuits as intimidation tactics. They articulated that the outcome of this case carries significant implications for those similarly facing retaliatory legal actions for voicing the truth.

The case exemplifies both the financial burdens and emotional toll associated with public disputes, especially given the high-profile status of those involved. As this legal narrative continues to unfold, all eyes remain on the court to determine the outcome regarding Baldoni’s challenge to Lively’s substantial fee claim.