Blake Lively’s legal battle with Justin Baldoni is not entirely over, despite the dismissal of the actor-director’s high-profile defamation lawsuit. The actress has now asked the court to order Baldoni to cover nearly $8 million in legal fees and litigation costs she says were incurred while defending herself against the case. The latest filing marks another significant chapter in one of Hollywood’s most closely followed legal disputes over the past year.
The request comes after a judge previously ruled that Lively was entitled to seek reimbursement under California law, although he declined to award her additional damages. Now, the court must decide how much of her legal expenses should ultimately be paid.
Blake Lively Seeks Nearly $8 Million From Justin Baldoni
According to court documents filed on Monday, Lively’s legal team says she spent approximately $7.5 million on attorney fees while defending against Baldoni’s $400 million defamation lawsuit. The filing also states that an additional $540,000 was spent on litigation-related costs, bringing the total reimbursement request to nearly $8 million.
The dispute began after Lively accused Baldoni, who co-starred with and directed her in It Ends With Us, of sexually harassing her during production and later orchestrating an online campaign against her after she raised concerns. Baldoni and Wayfarer Studios denied the allegations and responded by filing a massive defamation lawsuit against Lively and her husband, Ryan Reynolds, arguing they had used false accusations to gain control of the film.
That lawsuit was later dismissed after the court determined Lively’s statements were protected under litigation privilege. Although Lively eventually withdrew her own lawsuit before trial, the court allowed her to continue pursuing reimbursement for the legal costs she incurred while defending against Baldoni’s claims.
Lawyers Say the Case Was Meant to Intimidate
In the latest filing, Lively’s attorneys argued that awarding legal fees would discourage similar lawsuits aimed at intimidating people who report misconduct. They claimed the case was never intended to succeed on its legal merits but instead sought to pressure Lively and others involved.
“This gross abuse of the legal system was not meant to win in court — its aim was to retaliate against Lively by falsely branding her a liar, intimidating witnesses and the media, and discouraging others from speaking out,” they wrote in the motion.
The filing also notes that the reimbursement request covers only the costs of defending against Baldoni’s defamation claims. It does not include expenses related to Lively’s own lawsuit, which involved months of discovery, depositions, document review, legal motions and other proceedings throughout the lengthy dispute.
Earlier this month, Judge Lewis Liman ruled that Lively qualified to recover attorney fees under a 2023 California law designed to protect people who report sexual abuse or harassment from retaliatory defamation lawsuits. While the judge denied her request for damages, he concluded she could seek reimbursement for defending against the dismissed claims.
Lively’s lead attorneys, Michael Gottlieb and Esra Hudson, welcomed that decision, describing it as an important legal precedent.
“Thanks to this landmark decision, those considering using a lawsuit as a weapon of intimidation have been put on notice that there are consequences for doing so,” they said. “The value of this ruling is in the precedent it creates, the accountability it imposes, and the protection it provides to those who may one day find themselves facing similar retaliation for speaking the truth.”
Baldoni’s Team Pushes Back
Justin Baldoni’s legal team has continued to dispute the significance of the ruling. Earlier this month, attorney Bryan Freedman argued that the decision was much narrower than suggested and emphasized that several of Lively’s own claims had been dismissed before the case was settled.
“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,” Freedman said. “Notwithstanding that all of her sexual harassment and defamation claims were thrown out by the court, Ms. Lively 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.”
Baldoni’s lawyers have not yet formally responded to Lively’s latest request for reimbursement, but they will have an opportunity to challenge the amount before the court issues a final decision. Until then, another key financial question remains unresolved in a legal battle that has continued to attract widespread attention across the entertainment industry.
