Show summary Hide summary
- What Lively asked the court to collect
- How Baldoni’s lawyers responded to the fee demand
- Comparison to other legal fee requests
- Judge Lewis J. Liman’s earlier rulings and the legal framework
- How the dispute reached this stage: A timeline of key events
- Documents and public disclosures during discovery
- Statements from the principals and their teams
- What the court could do next
The legal aftermath of the high-profile dispute between actress Blake Lively and director Justin Baldoni has shifted from headlines about allegations to a fight over who pays millions in legal costs. Even after a settlement, the pair remain embroiled in court as Baldoni’s team pushes back against Lively’s request for roughly $8 million in attorneys’ fees.
What Lively asked the court to collect
On June 29, Lively’s lawyers filed a motion asking the court to order Baldoni to cover $8,035,040.88 in legal fees and related costs. That number includes:
DWTS contestants turn to Amanda Kloots for advice every year
404 error: why this page won’t load and how to fix it
- $7,495,526.87 for attorneys’ fees
- $539,514.01 for litigation costs and expenses
Her team says these were incurred defending against a dismissed defamation claim tied to the broader dispute over the film It Ends With Us.
How Baldoni’s lawyers responded to the fee demand
Attorneys for Justin Baldoni rejected the motion as unsupported and excessive. In a court filing, lawyers Ellyn S. Garofalo and Bryan Freedman argued the fee submission lacks credible proof and should be denied.
Main points in Baldoni’s objection
- They say the hours billed — more than 7,070.20 — are unreasonable.
- They note billing came from as many as 82 timekeepers.
- They claim duplicated attendance at hearings and repeated conferences among lawyers inflated costs.
- They call some research and online investigation charges “extremely excessive.”
Comparison to other legal fee requests
Baldoni’s team also pointed to a recent fee request by The New York Times. They say the Times sought less than $200,000 in fees to resolve a similar defamation claim. The filing frames Lively’s number as unusually large compared with that benchmark.
Judge Lewis J. Liman’s earlier rulings and the legal framework
In mid-June, Judge Lewis J. Liman ruled Baldoni must cover Lively’s fees under a 2023 California law designed to protect sexual abuse accusers from retaliatory defamation suits. The judge declined to award triple or punitive damages.
Following that decision, Liman set a deadline for Baldoni’s response. The July 13 filing from Freedman and Garofalo answers that prompt and disputes the math and justification behind Lively’s demand.
How the dispute reached this stage: A timeline of key events
- December 2024 — Lively sued Baldoni alleging sexual harassment and an orchestrated smear campaign.
- Shortly after — Baldoni denied the claims and filed a countersuit.
- June 2025 — Baldoni’s countersuit was dismissed.
- Discovery produced communications involving public figures, which were turned over in court.
- May 4 — The parties issued a joint statement announcing a settlement ahead of a scheduled trial.
- June 12 — Judge Liman found Baldoni liable for fees under California law.
- June 29 — Lively sought $8,035,040.88 in fees and costs.
- July 13 — Baldoni’s attorneys filed a formal opposition to that request.
Documents and public disclosures during discovery
During discovery, the case released messages involving several high-profile individuals. Texts from people such as Taylor Swift, Ryan Reynolds, Jenny Slate and Ben Affleck surfaced in court records and drew media attention.
Statements from the principals and their teams
After settlement, both sides issued a joint statement praising the film and saying they hoped the resolution would help survivors and allow everyone to move forward. The message emphasized commitment to safe workplaces and respectful discourse.
Days later, Justin and his wife, Emily Baldoni, posted an Instagram video. He spoke about healing, faith, family and gratitude to supporters who advocated on their behalf.
What the court could do next
Judge Liman will now weigh Baldoni’s objections to the fee motion and decide how much, if any, must be paid. Possible outcomes include:
- Denying the fee request entirely
- Substantially reducing the requested amount
- Awarding the full sum if the court finds it reasonable
The filings and the judge’s ruling will shape how attorneys’ fees are treated in similar disputes moving forward.
