A federal court ruling has emerged in the ongoing legal dispute between actress Blake Lively and filmmaker Justin Baldoni, who previously collaborated on the film *It Ends With Us*. On 26th August, U.S. District Judge Lewis J. Liman granted Lively a substantial, though significantly reduced, portion of her request for legal fees and costs, awarding her a total of £407,451.75. This sum falls well short of the US$8 million she sought from Baldoni and Wayfarer Studios.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():format(jpeg)/blake-lively-justin-baldoni-061625-c1009368ef7d4f958867f5805a8743c7.jpg)
The judge’s order included £363,245.40 for attorneys’ fees and £44,206.35 for litigation costs related to Baldoni’s previously dismissed countersuit against Lively. This countersuit, which Lively contended was retaliatory in nature, was filed six months after she accused Baldoni of sexual harassment and launching a smear campaign against her following her complaints.
Judge Liman ruled that while the hourly rates charged by Lively’s legal team were reasonable, the number of billable hours claimed was excessive. He noted, “The number of hours for which Lively seeks reimbursement is unreasonable,” highlighting that not all legal expenses incurred were pertinent to the defamation claim at the heart of the counter-suit.
In his assessment, Liman indicated that there remains a lack of legislative intent from California lawmakers suggesting that a defendant may claim all legal fees simply because a case involves a defamation suit. This remained central to the judge’s reasoning, which ultimately determined that Lively was only entitled to recover costs directly associated with defending against Baldoni’s defamation allegation.
The litigation had garnered widespread attention, with Judge Liman describing it as contentious and complex, given the substantial financial and reputational risks faced by all parties. He acknowledged the intricacies involved in the case, emphasizing that it was “extremely well-litigated.” Despite this, he pointed out that much of the time billed related to areas like media relations, which were not essential to the defence in the defamation case, thus rendering those hours non-compensable.
The judge’s decision follows the dismissal of Baldoni’s derivative defamation claims in June 2025, part of a broader lawsuit worth US$400 million filed against Lively, her husband Ryan Reynolds, and several others. Elements of that ruling positioned Lively as the prevailing defendant under California Civil Code Section 47.1, qualifying her to pursue reasonable attorney fees.
For her part, Lively had initially sought compensation of US$7,495,526.87 in fees and US$539,514.01 in litigation costs. Her legal team argued that the work required to combat Baldoni’s claims was both “comprehensive and necessary” and interconnected with the dismissed counterclaims. They further cited the high-profile nature of the case, extensive discovery, and substantial volumes of documentation, including over 7,000 documents produced by Lively herself, as factors contributing to heightened legal costs.
Opposing counsel for Baldoni maintained that Lively’s application for fees was “anything but a typical fee motion.” They contended that her legal team had overstaffed their case and charged excessive rates, ultimately accumulating over 7,000 hours of billable time across 82 individual timekeepers. Baldoni’s team further suggested that many billing activities were related to claims still active or other aspects of the litigation as opposed to the settled defamation-related counterclaims.
As a point of comparison, Baldoni’s legal representatives referenced a similar case involving The New York Times, which sought far less — US$181,622.70 — in fees after successfully obtaining a dismissal on one of Baldoni’s defamation claims. They argued that Lively’s request was fundamentally unbalanced in comparison.
The wider litigation between Lively and Wayfarer Studios concluded with a settlement in May, just ahead of their impending trial date, marking a significant moment in the legal saga which had gripped public attention for its serious allegations and high-profile participants. The resolution of this legal conflict remains pivotal in the discourse surrounding the entertainment industry’s handling of claims related to harassment and defamation.