Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Baldoni filed the $400M countersuit in January 2025 and it was tossed in November 2025. 11 months of white shoe attorneys is certainly not a small sum, it's likely several million dollars.

But it wasn’t 11 months of work. Maybe a few weeks to draft and file the motion to dismiss and a few more weeks on preparing for the 47.1 fee hearing. Not millions of dollars and it has to be reasonable fees.

Her lawyers fees will be deemed reasonable even if their rates are high, as long as they are still in line with rates of similar lawyers. She's a celebrity and this was an extremely high profile case, she is entitled to a highly qualified firm. The size of the defamation action will also influence that decision -- if someone filed a $400m defamation claims against you, would you go bargain hunting for lawyers?

It will definitely be more than a few weeks to draft the motion to dismiss. Also we're talking dozens of lawyers here.

They will almost certainly ask for more fees than Limam will grant, but it's not going to be a low number. It won't be 30 million but it's not going to 10k either.

All of her fees will be reviewed for reasonableness and regardless of hourly rate, her team can’t claim it took them 3x the hours to do something like write a motion. Just because she has dozens of lawyers it doesn’t mean she can claim millions in fees and costs.

Again, none of this is money going to her. So she may save some $$$ but she still has to pay the rest of what is surely a large legal bill.

So again, explain how this is a victory?

It's a victory for 47.1. It validates the law. And importantly, it INvalidates Baldoni's sham defamation lawsuit by ensuring he and his friends are on the hook for every penny it cost.

Far from it, Liman clearly felt there was serious Constitutional issues with 47.1. He sidestepped them by not awarding punitive and treble damages on alternative grounds. The fee shifting aspect of 47.1 was never the issue with it. Even so, I don't think Liman's finding regarding lack of malice would have withstood appeal, and I think he knows that. But he really didn't want to be the judge to find 47.1 unconstitutional so he sidestepped it.

You are confiding fees and damages.

He awarded all fees. So yes, Baldoni will have to pay for all costs associated with his meritless defamation claim.

No, Baldoni isn't paying anything, Wayfarer is. And the most they're getting is 300k capped. Literally peanuts in comparison to the 30M baseless suit Lively filed and lost between her dismissed claims and settlement. With their remaining multi-million dollar attorney fees, the $2.1M mechanics lien on their home, Blake Brown hemorrhaging, the new $5M lawsuit with the tesla, and NYC/NY state/and federal taxes, they're bleeding money out of their bootyhole.

Wayfarer is Baldoni's company though. He founded it.

Where does it say fees are capped at 300k?

He co-founded it, along with Steve Sarowitz, who is worth $3 billion. I really don’t think Justin is sweating this. Steve either.

But anyway, this lawsuit is not the big one that she was seeking all this money for - it is just the suit that Justin filed. There is no way they spent tens of millions on that defamation lawsuit. The big money was spent on her main lawsuit with the 15 claims, then 13 claims, then 10 claims, then settled for no money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m sure wayfarer/baldoni are completely relieved with this outcome. I think that’s how you know Lively didn’t “win.” She’ll spin it, like she’s spun everything, but if you actually care to understand the details of this case, you know that a few thousand dollars (plus the earlier $0 settlement) is not a big deal when we could have been talking tens of millions.

Baldoni/Wayfarer probably felt like they had to file the defamation suit to get their side of the story heard after the NYT hit piece, and for that they get a (anti)slap on the wrist. Small potatoes for the story they were able to tell. It makes his attorney look pretty astute, playing the long game like that.

And on the positive side, 47.1 did what it was supposed to do by providing some protection from retaliatory lawsuits.

I meant a few *hundred* thousand dollars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Baldoni filed the $400M countersuit in January 2025 and it was tossed in November 2025. 11 months of white shoe attorneys is certainly not a small sum, it's likely several million dollars.

But it wasn’t 11 months of work. Maybe a few weeks to draft and file the motion to dismiss and a few more weeks on preparing for the 47.1 fee hearing. Not millions of dollars and it has to be reasonable fees.

Her lawyers fees will be deemed reasonable even if their rates are high, as long as they are still in line with rates of similar lawyers. She's a celebrity and this was an extremely high profile case, she is entitled to a highly qualified firm. The size of the defamation action will also influence that decision -- if someone filed a $400m defamation claims against you, would you go bargain hunting for lawyers?

It will definitely be more than a few weeks to draft the motion to dismiss. Also we're talking dozens of lawyers here.

They will almost certainly ask for more fees than Limam will grant, but it's not going to be a low number. It won't be 30 million but it's not going to 10k either.

All of her fees will be reviewed for reasonableness and regardless of hourly rate, her team can’t claim it took them 3x the hours to do something like write a motion. Just because she has dozens of lawyers it doesn’t mean she can claim millions in fees and costs.

Again, none of this is money going to her. So she may save some $$$ but she still has to pay the rest of what is surely a large legal bill.

So again, explain how this is a victory?

It's a victory for 47.1. It validates the law. And importantly, it INvalidates Baldoni's sham defamation lawsuit by ensuring he and his friends are on the hook for every penny it cost.

Far from it, Liman clearly felt there was serious Constitutional issues with 47.1. He sidestepped them by not awarding punitive and treble damages on alternative grounds. The fee shifting aspect of 47.1 was never the issue with it. Even so, I don't think Liman's finding regarding lack of malice would have withstood appeal, and I think he knows that. But he really didn't want to be the judge to find 47.1 unconstitutional so he sidestepped it.

You are confiding fees and damages.

He awarded all fees. So yes, Baldoni will have to pay for all costs associated with his meritless defamation claim.

No, Baldoni isn't paying anything, Wayfarer is. And the most they're getting is 300k capped. Literally peanuts in comparison to the 30M baseless suit Lively filed and lost between her dismissed claims and settlement. With their remaining multi-million dollar attorney fees, the $2.1M mechanics lien on their home, Blake Brown hemorrhaging, the new $5M lawsuit with the tesla, and NYC/NY state/and federal taxes, they're bleeding money out of their bootyhole.

Wayfarer is Baldoni's company though. He founded it.

Where does it say fees are capped at 300k?

Not that poster, but by way of comparision, the New York Times is seeking about $150,000 in legal fees for its much lengthier MTD brief on defamation in this case. Liman will adjust whatever Lively submits for reasonableness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Baldoni filed the $400M countersuit in January 2025 and it was tossed in November 2025. 11 months of white shoe attorneys is certainly not a small sum, it's likely several million dollars.

But it wasn’t 11 months of work. Maybe a few weeks to draft and file the motion to dismiss and a few more weeks on preparing for the 47.1 fee hearing. Not millions of dollars and it has to be reasonable fees.

Her lawyers fees will be deemed reasonable even if their rates are high, as long as they are still in line with rates of similar lawyers. She's a celebrity and this was an extremely high profile case, she is entitled to a highly qualified firm. The size of the defamation action will also influence that decision -- if someone filed a $400m defamation claims against you, would you go bargain hunting for lawyers?

It will definitely be more than a few weeks to draft the motion to dismiss. Also we're talking dozens of lawyers here.

They will almost certainly ask for more fees than Limam will grant, but it's not going to be a low number. It won't be 30 million but it's not going to 10k either.

All of her fees will be reviewed for reasonableness and regardless of hourly rate, her team can’t claim it took them 3x the hours to do something like write a motion. Just because she has dozens of lawyers it doesn’t mean she can claim millions in fees and costs.

Again, none of this is money going to her. So she may save some $$$ but she still has to pay the rest of what is surely a large legal bill.

So again, explain how this is a victory?

It's a victory for 47.1. It validates the law. And importantly, it INvalidates Baldoni's sham defamation lawsuit by ensuring he and his friends are on the hook for every penny it cost.

Far from it, Liman clearly felt there was serious Constitutional issues with 47.1. He sidestepped them by not awarding punitive and treble damages on alternative grounds. The fee shifting aspect of 47.1 was never the issue with it. Even so, I don't think Liman's finding regarding lack of malice would have withstood appeal, and I think he knows that. But he really didn't want to be the judge to find 47.1 unconstitutional so he sidestepped it.

You are confiding fees and damages.

He awarded all fees. So yes, Baldoni will have to pay for all costs associated with his meritless defamation claim.

No, Baldoni isn't paying anything, Wayfarer is. And the most they're getting is 300k capped. Literally peanuts in comparison to the 30M baseless suit Lively filed and lost between her dismissed claims and settlement. With their remaining multi-million dollar attorney fees, the $2.1M mechanics lien on their home, Blake Brown hemorrhaging, the new $5M lawsuit with the tesla, and NYC/NY state/and federal taxes, they're bleeding money out of their bootyhole.

Wayfarer is Baldoni's company though. He founded it.

Where does it say fees are capped at 300k?

Not that poster, but by way of comparision, the New York Times is seeking about $150,000 in legal fees for its much lengthier MTD brief on defamation in this case. Liman will adjust whatever Lively submits for reasonableness.

Even if she gets closer to $1 million it’s just a small portion of her overall legal bill which is likely to be well north of $10 million. Some estimates are even north of $30 million.

[Anonymous]

There is no possible way her lawsuit and every grifter involved was 30 million. Come on now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is no possible way her lawsuit and every grifter involved was 30 million. Come on now.

Her own lawyers are saying they expect to recoup “millions” for this one piece of litigation. Maybe it’s hyperbole but it’s not far-fetched to think her total legal bill is in the double digits of millions

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no possible way her lawsuit and every grifter involved was 30 million. Come on now.

Her own lawyers are saying they expect to recoup “millions” for this one piece of litigation. Maybe it’s hyperbole but it’s not far-fetched to think her total legal bill is in the double digits of millions

The defamation claims are one seventh of the motion to dismiss. It is in fact far fetched to think her legal bill related to the defamation claim is anywhere close to a million. Further, WF will have an opportunity to object to any fees they think are unreasonable and the judge will decide. The $158,000 the New York Times is seeking gives very good insight as to what is reasonable with respect to fees for a claim dismissed early on.

--Big Law lawyer who worked on many motions to dismiss in federal court

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no possible way her lawsuit and every grifter involved was 30 million. Come on now.

Her own lawyers are saying they expect to recoup “millions” for this one piece of litigation. Maybe it’s hyperbole but it’s not far-fetched to think her total legal bill is in the double digits of millions

They want ppl to think wayfarer is on the hook for all her attorney fees. So, I do think it was hyperbole for the sake of misleading the casual person who is only reading snippets about this case. My husband today was like, “So I read Baldoni has to play all Blake’s legal fees.” Frustrating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no possible way her lawsuit and every grifter involved was 30 million. Come on now.

Her own lawyers are saying they expect to recoup “millions” for this one piece of litigation. Maybe it’s hyperbole but it’s not far-fetched to think her total legal bill is in the double digits of millions

They want ppl to think wayfarer is on the hook for all her attorney fees. So, I do think it was hyperbole for the sake of misleading the casual person who is only reading snippets about this case. My husband today was like, “So I read Baldoni has to play all Blake’s legal fees.” Frustrating.

Exactly. That is how it is being framed by some.

They are trying to win back some of the public, which….fine. They aren’t going to fool brands or studios. They don’t give a crap about these legal fees. It’s going to take studios a very long time to be willing to overlook what they’ve done. Who in their right mind would hire Blake if they know this is what they’re going to get?

And businesses and brands too. She’s now had a string of failed businesses. Radioactive.

[Anonymous]

Lively's lawyers have not said they will recover millions in fees based on this motion. I don't know what their fees are, at some point they'll submit them to the court. We'll see.

What they have said is that in the decision Liman has outlined an avenue for Lively to pursue the damages he did not grant (because he can't grant damages without fact finding and there is no avenue to find fact in this case anymore). Liman has suggested Lively could pursue the damages portion of the 47.1 claim in CA court via and anti-SLAPP or similar motion, and her lawyers have suggested they intend to do that.

I have no idea if this would actually work or not, I'm just clarifying what her lawyers have actually said on the matter. They didn't suggest that they will be awarded millions in attorney's fees based on this motion, they haven't mentioned any numbers with regards to attorney's fees yet at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lively's lawyers have not said they will recover millions in fees based on this motion. I don't know what their fees are, at some point they'll submit them to the court. We'll see.

What they have said is that in the decision Liman has outlined an avenue for Lively to pursue the damages he did not grant (because he can't grant damages without fact finding and there is no avenue to find fact in this case anymore). Liman has suggested Lively could pursue the damages portion of the 47.1 claim in CA court via and anti-SLAPP or similar motion, and her lawyers have suggested they intend to do that.

I have no idea if this would actually work or not, I'm just clarifying what her lawyers have actually said on the matter. They didn't suggest that they will be awarded millions in attorney's fees based on this motion, they haven't mentioned any numbers with regards to attorney's fees yet at all.

That’s actually not what they said. They vaguely stated: “Thankfully, there’s a law against that, and the Court applied it today. People who do nothing wrong don’t have to pay millions of dollars, which is where this is headed now,” the statement concluded.”

This is intentionally misleading.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lively's lawyers have not said they will recover millions in fees based on this motion. I don't know what their fees are, at some point they'll submit them to the court. We'll see.

What they have said is that in the decision Liman has outlined an avenue for Lively to pursue the damages he did not grant (because he can't grant damages without fact finding and there is no avenue to find fact in this case anymore). Liman has suggested Lively could pursue the damages portion of the 47.1 claim in CA court via and anti-SLAPP or similar motion, and her lawyers have suggested they intend to do that.

I have no idea if this would actually work or not, I'm just clarifying what her lawyers have actually said on the matter. They didn't suggest that they will be awarded millions in attorney's fees based on this motion, they haven't mentioned any numbers with regards to attorney's fees yet at all.

That’s actually not what they said. They vaguely stated: “Thankfully, there’s a law against that, and the Court applied it today. People who do nothing wrong don’t have to pay millions of dollars, which is where this is headed now,” the statement concluded.”

This is intentionally misleading.

Yes but they also said this:

"Blake Lively won her motion under Civil Code Section 47.1,” Lively’s lawyers Esra Hudson and Michael Gottlieb told Deadline. “Today’s ruling makes it clear that Ms. Lively brought her claims in good faith, that there was no evidence she acted with malice, and that she is the prevailing defendant under Section 47.1.”

They added: “The Court is awarding Ms. Lively attorneys’ fees and costs and has explained that a prevailing defendant under Section 47.1 may seek damages using different procedural mechanisms. The parties’ settlement agreement expressly preserves Ms. Lively’s rights to obtain those damages. Ms. Lively is gratified that her lawsuit shows how Section 47.1 and laws like it create a path for survivors to hold accountable those who weaponize online attacks and retaliatory lawsuits to intimidate and silence survivors.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lively's lawyers have not said they will recover millions in fees based on this motion. I don't know what their fees are, at some point they'll submit them to the court. We'll see.

What they have said is that in the decision Liman has outlined an avenue for Lively to pursue the damages he did not grant (because he can't grant damages without fact finding and there is no avenue to find fact in this case anymore). Liman has suggested Lively could pursue the damages portion of the 47.1 claim in CA court via and anti-SLAPP or similar motion, and her lawyers have suggested they intend to do that.

I have no idea if this would actually work or not, I'm just clarifying what her lawyers have actually said on the matter. They didn't suggest that they will be awarded millions in attorney's fees based on this motion, they haven't mentioned any numbers with regards to attorney's fees yet at all.

That’s actually not what they said. They vaguely stated: “Thankfully, there’s a law against that, and the Court applied it today. People who do nothing wrong don’t have to pay millions of dollars, which is where this is headed now,” the statement concluded.”

This is intentionally misleading.

Yes but they also said this:

"Blake Lively won her motion under Civil Code Section 47.1,” Lively’s lawyers Esra Hudson and Michael Gottlieb told Deadline. “Today’s ruling makes it clear that Ms. Lively brought her claims in good faith, that there was no evidence she acted with malice, and that she is the prevailing defendant under Section 47.1.”

They added: “The Court is awarding Ms. Lively attorneys’ fees and costs and has explained that a prevailing defendant under Section 47.1 may seek damages using different procedural mechanisms. The parties’ settlement agreement expressly preserves Ms. Lively’s rights to obtain those damages. Ms. Lively is gratified that her lawsuit shows how Section 47.1 and laws like it create a path for survivors to hold accountable those who weaponize online attacks and retaliatory lawsuits to intimidate and silence survivors.”

So what? They also said the other misleading bull crap, which implies some million dollar decision was handed down, and that that fictitious decision meant he was guilty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lively's lawyers have not said they will recover millions in fees based on this motion. I don't know what their fees are, at some point they'll submit them to the court. We'll see.

What they have said is that in the decision Liman has outlined an avenue for Lively to pursue the damages he did not grant (because he can't grant damages without fact finding and there is no avenue to find fact in this case anymore). Liman has suggested Lively could pursue the damages portion of the 47.1 claim in CA court via and anti-SLAPP or similar motion, and her lawyers have suggested they intend to do that.

I have no idea if this would actually work or not, I'm just clarifying what her lawyers have actually said on the matter. They didn't suggest that they will be awarded millions in attorney's fees based on this motion, they haven't mentioned any numbers with regards to attorney's fees yet at all.

I've defended Lively here, but I didn't read the decision that way. I am not going to read it again but I don't recall Limn mentioning that she could file for damages in California court. I read it as saying he couldn't grant them here, and then going back to the settlement, it says Lively retains all claims "in connection with," the pending 47.1 motion before Liman's court. So they'd have to litigate whether that includes separate motions in California if not expressly granted by the judge in the motion that was pending at settlement.

It would be a fool's errand, anyway, because Lively accepted that terrible settlement on her main claims, so why would she want to go to another court and litigate her damages using the same expert reports, but somehow having to carve out only the damages caused by Wayfarer's retaliatory lawsuit and not the underlying smear campaign that started at the premiere. I think the lawsuit did cause some damage by disseminating that exhibit A, but it's kind of like Lively's CRD... a spin to paint the opposite party in the absolute worst light but generally based on real text messages and facts. It would be a tough argument that essentially contextualizing some of her claims with their version of the truth caused damages. Plus, I'm not sure the California court would necessarily have to accept Liman's finding that Lively acted without malice for purposes of establishing damages, so that would mean re-litigating basically her entire claim.

I know you weren't exactly saying that Lively would be doing this but just trying to interpret what her lawyers said. I hope that was just puffery on their part to make it sound better. The attorney's fees was a modest win and at this point she should just take that win and let it be. The time to fight was at the trial in Lively v Wayfarer and she chose not to do that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lively's lawyers have not said they will recover millions in fees based on this motion. I don't know what their fees are, at some point they'll submit them to the court. We'll see.

What they have said is that in the decision Liman has outlined an avenue for Lively to pursue the damages he did not grant (because he can't grant damages without fact finding and there is no avenue to find fact in this case anymore). Liman has suggested Lively could pursue the damages portion of the 47.1 claim in CA court via and anti-SLAPP or similar motion, and her lawyers have suggested they intend to do that.

I have no idea if this would actually work or not, I'm just clarifying what her lawyers have actually said on the matter. They didn't suggest that they will be awarded millions in attorney's fees based on this motion, they haven't mentioned any numbers with regards to attorney's fees yet at all.

I've defended Lively here, but I didn't read the decision that way. I am not going to read it again but I don't recall Limn mentioning that she could file for damages in California court. I read it as saying he couldn't grant them here, and then going back to the settlement, it says Lively retains all claims "in connection with," the pending 47.1 motion before Liman's court. So they'd have to litigate whether that includes separate motions in California if not expressly granted by the judge in the motion that was pending at settlement.

It would be a fool's errand, anyway, because Lively accepted that terrible settlement on her main claims, so why would she want to go to another court and litigate her damages using the same expert reports, but somehow having to carve out only the damages caused by Wayfarer's retaliatory lawsuit and not the underlying smear campaign that started at the premiere. I think the lawsuit did cause some damage by disseminating that exhibit A, but it's kind of like Lively's CRD... a spin to paint the opposite party in the absolute worst light but generally based on real text messages and facts. It would be a tough argument that essentially contextualizing some of her claims with their version of the truth caused damages. Plus, I'm not sure the California court would necessarily have to accept Liman's finding that Lively acted without malice for purposes of establishing damages, so that would mean re-litigating basically her entire claim.

I know you weren't exactly saying that Lively would be doing this but just trying to interpret what her lawyers said. I hope that was just puffery on their part to make it sound better. The attorney's fees was a modest win and at this point she should just take that win and let it be. The time to fight was at the trial in Lively v Wayfarer and she chose not to do that.

I'm not defending the strategy, which I have a lot of skepticism about, I'm just pointing out that this is actually what her team is saying -- it sounds like they intend to pursue damages on the 46.1 motion in CA courts.

People on Reddit are pointing to a footnote in the decision where Liman suggests "bifurcated proceedings" that would permit someone to recover damages under 47.1 via a separate counterclaim filed by the defamation defendant, even though he is ruling that he can't award them here because there is no way to do it under the federal rules. This is the footnote:

Footnote 8: It is possible that Section 47.1 is most naturally enforced through a counterclaim filed by the defamation defendant. In that fashion, both plaintiff and defendant would be entitled to the discovery tools of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and a jury trial on the question of whether the defendant, if she prevails in defending against the defamation claim, is entitled to damages under Rule 47.1 (perhaps with the quantum of damages determined in a bifurcated proceeding, akin to that which the courts frequently employ with respect to punitive damages). Cf. Smith v. Lightning Bolt Prods., Inc., 861 F.2d 363, 373–74 (2d Cir. 1988) (explaining procedures for trial bifurcation in punitive damages context); see also Sooroojballie v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 816 F. App’x 536, 549–50 (2d Cir. 2020) (summary order) (same). The Court need not address that question. For present purposes, it is sufficient that Rule 54(d) does not provide a vehicle for compensatory and punitive damages.

I cannot speak to whether this is even feasible under the terms of her settlement, but Lively's attorneys clearly indicated they are seeking to pursue it in their statement to Deadline. I know this thread gets focused on the Lively v. Baldoni of it all, but at this point I'm more interested in the precedent that is being laid for future 47.1 (or parallel statutes in other states) cases and how defendants of these sorts of defamation cases can pursue relief. From a victim's rights standpoint, Liman's suggestion is interesting because it suggests a possible pathway for future victims to pursue damages, regardless of whether Lively successfully uses it here.