A federal judge granted Blake Lively a partial victory on Friday in a legal motion that followed her settlement with Justin Baldoni’s production company, granting her attorneys fees but denying her request for additional financial penalties.
Last month, Ms. Lively settled her retaliation claims that stemmed from the making of the 2024 movie “It Ends With Us,” as both sides were gearing up for a contentious and high-profile trial in Federal District Court in Manhattan. She received no financial compensation as part of the settlement, but the agreement allowed her to pursue a payout through a different legal avenue.
Citing Mr. Baldoni’s unsuccessful defamation lawsuit against her last year, lawyers for Ms. Lively sought to leverage a two-year-old California law adopted to prevent the weaponization of defamation suits to intimidate those who make harassment complaints. Ms. Lively had claimed she had been the targeted of a retaliatory online campaign, run by Mr. Baldoni and his associates, after complaining of sexual harassment on the set of the movie.
Lawyers for Mr. Baldoni denied that Ms. Lively was entitled to receive fees under that law, and have long argued that she had twisted innocuous interactions into harassment allegations in an effort to assert control over the making of the movie.
In a 47-page order, Judge Liman found that Ms. Lively’s case did fulfill the criteria of the law, which requires that the accuser made sexual misconduct complaints “without malice.”
Judge Liman wrote that in responding to the actress’s request for fees, Mr. Baldoni and his associates had provided no evidence establishing that Ms. Lively had made her accusations with malice.
“Allegations are insufficient on their own to demonstrate that statements were in fact made with malice,” the judge wrote. “That determination requires some evidence.”
Ms. Lively’s lawyers have not yet asserted the amount of attorneys fees they should be owed for defending against Mr. Baldoni’s defamation suit, which was dismissed last year. Such calculations are often subject to objections from the other side.
Ms. Lively was hoping that the judge would order treble damages — meaning any figure would be tripled — and punitive damages, which are listed as possible penalties in the California law. But the judge found that through the particular legal procedure that Ms. Lively was following, she could only ask for fees, not damages.
In their settlement agreement, both sides agreed not to appeal Judge Liman’s ruling.
Representatives for Ms. Lively and Mr. Baldoni did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
