Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni's Fight Over Legal Fees Wears on as Judge Blocks New Filings

The legal battle between Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni may be officially settled, but in court, it’s still very much alive.

In a sign of mounting frustration, U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman has barred any new filings in the case without explicit court approval, effectively drawing a line under what has become an increasingly drawn-out post-settlement dispute.

The order comes as Lively’s legal team continues to pursue attorneys’ fees and damages tied to Baldoni’s earlier defamation claims, even after the two sides resolved their core legal fight.

Liman’s latest directive suggests the court is ready to move toward a decision without further input. The move follows a request from Lively’s attorneys to submit additional briefing, arguing that the legal landscape had evolved since the issue was first argued last year. The judge declined.

“When a judge denies additional briefing, whether post-settlement or otherwise, it often means they’re fed up with the lawyers, they don’t see the benefit of additional submissions, or they’re simply tired of reading,” said attorney and law professor Danny Karon, who is not involved in the case.

“As in life, less tends to be more, and attorneys should strive to take as few pages as possible to make their point.”

Lively is now attempting to recover attorneys’ fees, litigation costs, and additional damages under California Civil Code Section 47.1, which protects individuals who report harassment or retaliation from facing retaliatory defamation lawsuits.

Lively’s attorneys argue Baldoni’s prior defamation claims fall into that category, potentially opening the door to significant financial penalties, including compensatory damages that could be tripled under the statute, along with punitive damages.

The settlement agreement preserved Lively’s right to pursue those claims, even as both sides agreed to waive appeals related to the court’s eventual ruling on the issue.

Lawyers for Baldoni and the Wayfarer parties have strongly opposed any further briefing, arguing that Lively already made her case months ago and previously urged the court to rule without additional submissions.

They also emphasized that the broader settlement resolved the bulk of the litigation “without the Wayfarer Defendants paying a cent of the $300 million in damages she was demanding.”

“Attorneys’ fee disputes can extend the life of a case and take on a life of their own,” Karon explained. “Judges loathe these disputes, likening them to fights between siblings.”

That appears to be exactly where this case now stands: no longer about liability or the underlying allegations, but about who pays, and how much.

“The sooner – and more quickly – attorneys can resolve fee disputes,” Karon said, “the better off the court will be, which also means the better off their clients will be.”