In Blake Lively and Baldoni Fight She Won Fees Under 47.1 Now Her $8 Million Called Unsupportable

In Blake Lively and Baldoni Fight She Won Fees Under 47.1 Now Her $8 Million Called Unsupportable by Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Book Substack SDNY COURTHOUSE, July 13 – In the Blake Lively v. Justin Baldoni lawsuits, a hearing was held on February 3 before U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge Lewis J. Liman. Inner City Press was there with live coverage, thread On June 12 Judge Lewis J. Liman issued a long ruling concluding that "Lively made statements that come within the purview of Section 47.1, she prevailed on her defense, and—on this record—there is no evidence of malice. Accordingly, she is entitled to attorneys’ fees under Section 47.1" - full ruling on Patreon here. On September 16 the Wayfarer Parties filed their 12 page "privilege log" of documents they say should not be subject to discovery, on Patreon here On May 4, in the run up to trial, the lawsuit was abruptly settled, with no details. With nothing yet filed in the court docket, the parties said in a statement, "We acknowledge the process presented challenges, and recognize concerns raised by Ms. Lively deserved to be heard. 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." But the fight did not end. On June 1 an oral argument on what Lively is seeking under California 47.1. Inner City Press live tweeted it, here. On June 16 Lively's lawyers wrote in asking for more time.Filing on Patreon here More on X for Subscribers here and Substack here On January 22 Inner City Press live tweeted the arguments here, afterward asking about the Heath into the trailer issue. More on Jan 22 on X for Subscriber here, Substack here Jump cut to April 24 when Judge Liman docketed the questions he intends to ask prospective jurors starting May 18, including " Have you read, heard, or seen anything about the book or movie It Ends With Us (including about filming the movie or the promotional tour), whether in interviews, articles, or online?  full questionnaire on Patreon here. At midnight on June 29-30 Lively lawyers wrote in that their ask of $8 million is reasonable - even, discounted - 10+ page brief on Patreon here. On July 13, opposition, including that "replaced portions of the narrative with “XX.” The spreadsheet reflects 319.5 hours and $361,403.50 in entries containing such redactions, making it impossible to determine the full scope of the work performed or on whose behalf it was performed. The redactions are not limited to minor details; they obscure parties, motions, subjects, witnesses, documents, consultants, interviews, articles, productions, protective-order issues, privilege issues, and communications with clients, legal teams, media teams, and unidentified third parties. For example, entries refer to research concerning whether pleadings can be struck “XX,” review of an “XX” motion to dismiss, legal issues related to “XX statements,” review of “XX interviews and articles,” protective-order issues “XX,” and “XX production.” These redactions prevent allocation to the defamation defense and obscure whether the work concerned Ms. Lively, Mr. Reynolds, media strategy, discovery, third-party issues, or another matter" - filing on Patreon here Back on February 6, a new book "Hollywood Hearsay," ranging from the CRD complaint in California to Jed Wallace's new case in Texas, comparing SDNY defamation cases, including Sarah Palin v NYT. Book here, Audiobook here More on X for Subscribers here and Substack here, Buy Me a Coffee here *** Your support means a lot. As little as $5 a month helps keep us going and grants you access to exclusive bonus material on our Patreon page. Click here to become a patron. Feedback: Editorial [at] innercitypress.com Mail: Box 130222, Chinatown Station, NY NY 10013 Reporter's mobile (and weekends): 718-716-3540 Other, earlier Inner City Press are listed here, and some are available in the ProQuest service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.  Copyright 2006-2026 Inner City Press, Inc. To request reprint or other permission, e-contact Editorial [at] innercitypress.com