Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2

[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.

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.

Liman was speaking hypothetically. Blake can’t file a counterclaim because there is no primary claim to counter.

[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.

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.

Thank you for providing the citation to the footnote. It seems very carefully worded. Like Liman is saying that is what could have been done (and he probably thinks should have been), while not directly saying Lively still has the option of doing that. He is expressly saying he's not addressing that question; his ruling she can't get those damages in this court on this motion. He is neither opening nor closing a door to doing it in state court. Lively can try to do it, but it seems like an uphill battle both procedurally and substantively.

NYT seems to have handled correctly by filing their anti-SLAAP motion in state court. I can't remember what Liman ruled as to Sloane's attorney's fees. Didn't he deny her motion but without prejudice? Wayfarer had argued Sloane should have gone to state court. I can't remember if Liman specifically said she could do it in state court. That probably would have been the better approach for Lively. Then again we can back to why didn't she file this whole case in California in the first place where she would have had jurisdiction over all the parties.

Liman's decision and analysis was very good. Although it won't have a lot of precedential value, I was glad he cleared up certain things like this case being dismissed on other grounds does not mean 47.1 can't apply if the facts fit, or the fact that the case was decided before discovery doesn't mean you can't pursue 47.1. It's good guidance for other courts.

[Anonymous]

I'm honestly not sure if Lively can file under 46.1 in state court. I don't understand the underlying mechanisms well enough.

But I do think Liman's footnote can be interpreted as suggesting an avenue for recovery. This matters to me because I do want there to be avenues for victims to obtain actual damages under 46.1. Whether that avenue is still open to Lively, he clearly has chosen not to say. That's appropriate. But it sounds like from their statements to the press, her lawyers intend to try and find an avenue. So we'll see. I kind of hope they do because I'm curious to see how they will attempt it. But I am not optimistic it will be successful, just curious from a legal nerd POV.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm honestly not sure if Lively can file under 46.1 in state court. I don't understand the underlying mechanisms well enough.

But I do think Liman's footnote can be interpreted as suggesting an avenue for recovery. This matters to me because I do want there to be avenues for victims to obtain actual damages under 46.1. Whether that avenue is still open to Lively, he clearly has chosen not to say. That's appropriate. But it sounds like from their statements to the press, her lawyers intend to try and find an avenue. So we'll see. I kind of hope they do because I'm curious to see how they will attempt it. But I am not optimistic it will be successful, just curious from a legal nerd POV.

Again you can’t file a counterclaim without a primary claim. As the pp said, Liman is speaking as to what Lively could have done from the get go, not what she can do now. The case is over, Blake released all her claims with prejudice except for “the pending” 47.1 motion that is no longer pending as of Friday. All that remains is for the parties to argue about the dollar amount of attorney’s fees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm honestly not sure if Lively can file under 46.1 in state court. I don't understand the underlying mechanisms well enough.

But I do think Liman's footnote can be interpreted as suggesting an avenue for recovery. This matters to me because I do want there to be avenues for victims to obtain actual damages under 46.1. Whether that avenue is still open to Lively, he clearly has chosen not to say. That's appropriate. But it sounds like from their statements to the press, her lawyers intend to try and find an avenue. So we'll see. I kind of hope they do because I'm curious to see how they will attempt it. But I am not optimistic it will be successful, just curious from a legal nerd POV.

Your lack of understanding of this point pretty clearly demonstrates you are not a legal
nerd.

[Anonymous]

So who won the fee war here? Is Gottlieb still applying suntan lotion on Liman's back as they relax on on a yacht? I've been half paying attention to the headlines.

[Anonymous]

Freedman released the film settlement statement to counter Blake’s claim that she can still pursue her motion in other jurisdictions. The circus continues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Freedman released the film settlement statement to counter Blake’s claim that she can still pursue her motion in other jurisdictions. The circus continues.

Full settlement

[Anonymous]

link: https://mk-a1.freetls.fastly.net/uploads/2026/06/2026.05.07-Final-Executed-Settlement-Agreement-including-Exhibits504360.1.pdf

[Anonymous]

Wow, the agreement explicitly says that any and all proceeding concerning the 47.1motion will be heard only by Liman. Gottlieb caught lying once again. Pathetic. One would think he would care more about his reputation than Lively at this point.

[Anonymous]

Judge set a schedule which gave Blake a week to submit legal bills and WF a week to respond. Blakey asking for more briefing or a month to submit bills. Stay tuned .. .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Judge set a schedule which gave Blake a week to submit legal bills and WF a week to respond. Blakey asking for more briefing or a month to submit bills. Stay tuned .. .

Why is she dragging this out? I guess it won’t be wrapped for Taylor’s wedding so maybe that confirms they aren’t invited.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Judge set a schedule which gave Blake a week to submit legal bills and WF a week to respond. Blakey asking for more briefing or a month to submit bills. Stay tuned .. .

Why is she dragging this out? I guess it won’t be wrapped for Taylor’s wedding so maybe that confirms they aren’t invited.

Some are saying she wants people to forgot she said she would be getting millions in fees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Judge set a schedule which gave Blake a week to submit legal bills and WF a week to respond. Blakey asking for more briefing or a month to submit bills. Stay tuned .. .

Why is she dragging this out? I guess it won’t be wrapped for Taylor’s wedding so maybe that confirms they aren’t invited.

Some are saying she wants people to forgot she said she would be getting millions in fees.

It’s just going to generate more headlines. She really just needs to stop the bleeding. No publicity about this case is good at this point. It’s less bad headlines versus really bad headlines but none of it is helping her rehab her image with brands or studios.

[Anonymous]

I mean, not everything is some huge conspiracy from Lively. The letter refers to Gottlieb being on vacation and I generally think the lawyers just don't want to cram through this in a week across multiple law firms.

I did laugh when they asked for clarification if Liman is looking for additional briefing, I'm sure he's like "Lord, no!" And they should have been prepared to submit if they got a favorable decision on fees. But I doubt Lively or Reynolds have any big involvement in apportioning the bills.