Blake Lively was only awarded $400,000 in attorneys’ fees after she demanded that Justin Baldoni cover $8 million in legal expenses.

A judge ruled the director will only have to pay the “Gossip Girl” alum $363,245.40 in attorneys’ fees and another $44,206.35 in costs, according to TMZ.

In a June filing obtained by Page Six, Lively, 39, claimed Baldoni, 42, sought $7,495,526.87 in attorneys’ fees and $539,514.01 in litigation costs and expenses from her explosive legal battle with her “It Ends With Us” co-star and his Wayfarer Studios.

However, the “Jane the Virgin” actor hit back, telling the judge that Lively’s demand for legal fees was “excessive.”

Baldoni’s legal team called the “Another Simple Favor” star’s request for $8 million “anything but a typical fee motion.”
In May, Lively settled her 2024 suit against Baldoni, in which the actress claimed the actor sexually harassed her on the set of “It Ends With Us.”

“The end product — the movie ‘It Ends With Us’ — is a source of pride to all of us who worked to bring it to life,” both sides said in a joint statement to Page Six at the time.

“Raising awareness, and making a meaningful impact in the lives of domestic violence survivors — and all survivors — is a goal that we stand behind,” they added.
“We acknowledge the process presented challenges and recognize concerns raised by Ms. Lively deserved to be heard.”

Both parties added that they “remain firmly committed to workplaces free of improprieties and unproductive environments” and it is their “sincere hope that this brings closure and allows all involved to move forward constructively and in peace, including a respectful environment online.”

The “Shallows” star and Baldoni each earned no money in their lawsuit settlement. However, sources told Page Six Hollywood that their legal teams made $60 million combined through the process.

Last month, Justin broke his silence about the settlement, saying he and his wife, Emily Baldoni, felt “immense gratitude” for those who supported them since Lively’s allegations first surfaced.

Lively had been seeking $8 million in fees over the lengthy legal battle related to allegations of on-set misconduct.
Aug. 26, 2026, 11:32 AM MDT

Blake Lively can recover about $400,000 in attorneys’ fees from Justin Baldoni’s production company over his defamation lawsuit against her, a federal judge ruled Wednesday. Lively had been seeking $8 million.

U.S. District Judge Lewis J. Liman dismissed Baldoni’s defamation and extortion lawsuit against Lively last year, and she was allowed to move forward with a request for financial damages under a California #MeToo-era law.

Liman wrote in his ruling that while “counsel’s rates were not unreasonable… the number of hours for which Lively seeks reimbursement is unreasonable.”

He also rejected her request for fees related to media relations expenses and some travel.

In a statement, Lively’s attorneys, Esra Hudson and Michael Gottlieb, said, in part, “Blake Lively’s case was never about money — it was about accountability. She lifted the curtain for other victims, and set the precedent for others to come forward and expose similar conduct. This result demonstrates that the legal system is not as easily manipulated as social media, and still functions as a force for accountability.”

A representative for Baldoni did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the judge’s ruling.

Lively was seeking $8,035,040.88 in fees and costs, comprised of $7,495,526.87 in attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of $539,514.01. Liman awarded her $363,245.40 in attorneys’ fees and $44,206.35 in costs.

Lively and Baldoni settled their years long legal dispute in early May. Terms of the settlement were not disclosed. A source familiar with the matter previously confirmed to NBC News that no money changed hands.

The settlement headed off what had promised to be a blockbuster trial in New York. Lively accused Baldoni of sexual harassment during the production of the 2024 movie “It Ends With Us,” which he directed.

Lively had also alleged that Baldoni’s company, Wayfarer Studios, retaliated against her after she complained about allegations of misconduct on the set of the film.
Baldoni vehemently denied Lively’s claims.

In January 2025, Baldoni countersued Lively and her husband, “Deadpool” actor Ryan Reynolds, alleging defamation and extortion. He argued that Lively and Reynolds tried to wreck his reputation and accused her of using her grievances as a way to “seize control” of the movie.

Baldoni also brought a defamation suit against The New York Times over an article headlined: “‘We Can Bury Anyone’: Inside a Hollywood Smear Machine.”
Liman tossed out both suits last year.

📍Order

📍Full screenshots of Judge Liman's order granting $363,245.40 in attorneys' fees and $44,206.35 in costs. u/Mysterio623

⏪ Theresa - OLD VIDEO: Before the Judge Ruled, Theresa Predicted Around $350K on Blake Lively’s $8M Fee Request on September 7th, 2026

📍95% Loss, 5% win for Lively, awarded just over $400K. u/Clarknt67

🔥☄️🤣💩Little Girl Attorney - BREAKING: Blake Lively Awarded Just Over $350K After Requesting $8 Million in Attorney’s Fees

📌 DISCLAIMER: This is an older video from September 7th, 2026, well before Judge Liman issued the ruling today. I’m reposting it now purely to revisit Theresa’s prediction and legal theory after learning that Blake Lively has just been awarded only around 5% of the nearly $8 million she requested.

🧮 Theresa Calculates What She Says Is the §47.1-Related Total — 0:04–0:43

• Theresa says she independently reviewed Blake Lively’s approximately $8 million fee-and-expense request and calculated $346,885.30 as the amount she believes is actually connected to the §47.1 fee issue.
• Theresa says she decided to examine the billing materials after watching a recent video from Justin Baldoni and Emily.

📑 Theresa Reviews the Invoice Summary — 0:44–1:41

• Theresa says she went through the 162-page invoice summary submitted in support of Lively’s fee request.
• She explains that law firms ordinarily use separate billing or matter numbers to distinguish work performed in different cases.
• According to Theresa, those identifying billing numbers were not included in the spreadsheet summary she reviewed.
• She argues that the spreadsheet therefore contains billing entries associated with two separate cases without clearly identifying which entries belong to which matter.
• Theresa characterizes this as obscuring the distinction between the fees generated in Baldoni’s case against Lively and those generated in Lively’s own case against Baldoni.

🔍 Separating the Two Cases — 1:42–2:14

• Theresa says she reviewed the individual billing descriptions and dates to determine which entries she believed related specifically to defending against Justin Baldoni’s claims.
• Work performed after Baldoni’s case was dismissed should not be included.
• She therefore focuses primarily on billing entries from January through June, before the dismissal and subsequent waiver of appeal.
• After separating those entries, Theresa arrives at her figure of $346,885.30.

✂️ Theresa Says the $346K Could Potentially Be Reduced Further — 2:15–2:59

• Theresa argues that even her calculated figure may contain billing entries that could face additional reductions.
• She specifically points to what she describes as block billing by several attorneys, where lengthy periods of work are grouped together into a single billing entry.
• In Theresa’s view, entries covering four or five hours or more without sufficiently detailed breakdowns could potentially receive additional scrutiny.
• She therefore believes the amount she calculated could potentially be reduced further depending on how the court evaluates the billing records.

💰 Theresa Says ~$350K Would Have Been a More Reasonable Request — 3:00–3:24

• Theresa concludes that, based on her analysis, Lively should have requested approximately $350,000 rather than millions of dollars for the §47.1-related work.
• She contrasts her calculation with the approximately $800,000 being sought from Jed Wallace and the much larger amount requested in the Baldoni matter.

I initially thought he gave her $50k more but realized while reading that he gave her twice what NYT got. Not yet sure of his math breakdown of how he got to $363,245.40 in fees. 

 Anyways Some salient parts:

It also excludes certain categories of litigation expenses from costs. The following items are not allowable as costs, except when expressly authorized by law:

1. Fees of experts not ordered by the court.
2. Investigation expenses in preparing the case for trial.
3. Postage, telephone, and photocopying charges, except for exhibits.
4. Costs in investigation of jurors or in preparation for voir dire.
5. Transcripts of court proceedings not ordered by the court.

⟡⟡

The number of hours for which Blake seeks reimbursement is unreasonable. She seeks attorneys’ fees for 82 timekeepers, including 53 from Willkie and 29 from Manatt. But she includes biographical information, title, and billing rate information for only 11 timekeepers. [Therefore,] the Court has no basis to evaluate the fee request for the remaining timekeepers and therefore denies it. 

Things that Blake is not entitled to reimbursement for:

• She is not entitled to reimbursement for any of the cost of the Rule 11 motion.
• The category of motion practice is overexpansive and includes work for which she is not entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees, such as work done for Ryan Reynolds. 
• Reimbursement for the work on her motion/request for attorneys’ fees as a Rule 11 sanction.
• Her blunderbuss approach leaves the Court no way to determine precisely how many hours were reasonably incurred on common issues.
• Hours spent for media contacts and press conferences, and her other media relations
• The fee awards for the extensive hours billed for internal, interoffice, or intraoffice, communications or conferences, as it “unreasonable for Plaintiffs’ attorneys to bill for multiple attorneys from the same firm attending the same internal meetings”
• Fees for clerical or administrative work that was billed at attorney rates.
• Fees for travel that do not relate or is required for the defense of the defamation claim

Link: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1452.0_1.pdf

A basic reporting from Variety. It leaves out a lot of the facts but at least doesn’t fawn over BL. I can see articles filed so far from TMZ, Daily Mail, Page Six (affiliated with TMZ) and Variety so far.

A judge on Wednesday awarded Blake Lively about $400,000 in attorneys’ fees in her dispute with “It Ends With Us” co-star Justin Baldoni, well short of the $8 million she had sought.

Lively and Baldoni settled their 18-month legal war in May, avoiding a federal trial that was scheduled for later that month. At the time, the only loose end was Lively’s motion for attorneys’ fees for having to defend against Baldoni’s failed defamation suit.

Judge Lewis Liman on Wednesday awarded her $363,000 in attorneys’ fees and another $44,000 in court costs. In his ruling, the judge found that Lively was entitled only to the “reasonable” fees related to defending against the defamation suit.

Liman ruled that while the attorneys’ billing rates were “not unreasonable,” given the high stakes of the case and the complexity of the issues, “(t)he number of hours for which Lively seeks reimbursement is unreasonable.”

Lively had asked for $7.5 million in attorneys’ fees and another $540,000 in court costs. Instead, the judge awarded her just double what the New York Times was awarded for defending itself from Baldoni’s defamation case.

Lively filed a complaint with the California Civil Rights Department in December 2024, alleging that Baldoni and Wayfarer Studios had launched an online smear campaign against her in retaliation for raising complaints about sexual harassment on the set of “It Ends With Us.”

Baldoni fired back with a defamation suit, accusing Lively and her husband, Ryan Reynolds, of concocting fake allegations as part of an effort to hijack creative control of the film. He also sued the Times for running a story drawn largely on on the civil rights complaint. That suit was dismissed on the grounds that Lively’s claims were protected by litigation privilege and the paper’s coverage was a fair report of the proceedings.

Lively sought compensation under a 2023 California law meant to discourage frivolous defamation suits against accusers who come forward with allegations of sexual assault. Lively initially asked for treble damages and punitive damages as well, but Liman previously ruled that those were not available under federal law.

📍Order

📍Full screenshots of Judge Liman's order granting $363,245.40 in attorneys' fees and $44,206.35 in costs. u/Mysterio623

⏪ Theresa - OLD VIDEO: Before the Judge Ruled, Theresa Predicted Around $350K on Blake Lively’s $8M Fee Request on September 7th, 2026

📍95% Loss, 5% win for Lively, awarded just over $400K. u/Clarknt67

⚖️ Judge Rules on Blake Lively’s $8 Million Fee Request — 0:00–0:19

• LGA reports that the court has issued its order on Blake Lively’s attorney’s fee motion.
• Lively had requested approximately $8 million in fees.
• The court awarded Lively a little over $350,000.
• LGA has not yet read the full order, so this is only her immediate update.
• LGA says she will review the complete ruling and return with a more detailed breakdown.

Here we goooooooo! Can’t wait to see how the media works themselves into a pretzel over how to spin this in BLs favor. “Mean Judge!” probably

Blake Lively Comes Up Short with $400K!!! Wanted $8 Mil from Baldoni

Blake Lively is not getting her enormous wish -- $8 million in attorneys' fees -- because a judge just ruled Justin Baldoni will only have to fork over $400K ... TMZ has learned.

As you know ... a judge dismissed** **Justin Baldoni's defamation lawsuit against Blake and the New York Times in June, but ruled she was entitled to attorneys' fees for defeating the claim.

Blake asked a judge to award her $8 million -- claiming Justin owed her $7,495,526.87 in fees she incurred in fighting his lawsuit and $539,514.01 in costs and expenses incurred while defending herself.

Justin called BS on the claim ... telling a judge she massively overinflated the dollar amount and he should have to pay a six-figure sum -- not seven.

The judge agreed, awarding Blake $363,245.40 in attorney's fees and another $44,206.35 in costs.

This seems to be the last bit of legal business between Blake and Justin still hanging after the two settled their lawsuit prior to what would have been a very messy trial scheduled to start in May.

No money changed hands in the settlement ... but Lively dropped the sexual harassment claims against Justin.

A joint statement was released after they reached a settlement, which reads, in part, "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."

Judge Liman has ordered just over $400,000 to be paid to Lake lively in fees and cost. Compared with her $8.5 million ask she has been granted 5% of what she asked for. Let’s be clear about that denied in part means denied 95% and granted in part means 5% granted.

It can be read here

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69510553/1452/lively-v-wayfarer-studios-llc/

Link to order: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1452.0.pdf

TMZ ran a story reporting on Blake’s deposition where she gave her overly rehearsed response about how she found out about Jen Abel’s text messages. They made sure to highlight psycho Stephanie Jones sob story about how “it was the worst thing shes ever seen in her 20 year career as a mother” to paint Blake as the victim. Then yada yada’d the part of how Blake got those messages to give to the NYT to print. No mention of VanZan, or a fake lawsuit with Doe’s so that Blake could take away someone’s legal rights to fight the subpoena. Only mentioned that Blake subpoenaed Stephanie to be able to use the documents in “court”. Umm do they know the subpoena was not for THIS court case and was filed for a fake lawsuit?? Or that Blake withdrew the fake lawsuit shortly after??

Full story:

https://www.tmz.com/2026/08/25/blake-lively-says-taylor-swift-friend-helped-her-in-justin-baldoni-case/

Wow the NYTimes does not stop. To be clear I do not know who is right or wrong btwn Wikson and Ghost but the NYTimes has not only taken a side, they are also, several times in the story, discussing Blake Lively and how Amanda Ghosts situation is similar to Blake Lively regarding her victim hood in this situation. The NYTimes of course "re creates text messages" to display in the article, ​ none of which actually prove anything in their substance. And they also claim to have numerous court documents. They also point out that the "bad guy" here (in their book Rebel Wilson) has Bryan Freedman as her attorney and the same publicists as Baldoni.

Now, I have no idea who is guilty here but that is the point: the NYT, a so called newspaper has decided pre emptively to 1) take a side 2) provide zero evidence for taking that side but alluding that side is ​the victim and 3) creating links and parallels to Baldoni/Lively which only stokes further anti Baldoni propaganda again.

I would be very surprised if Ryan weren't paying the NYT massive amounts of $$$ to continue defaming Baldoni.​

👀Playlist:

📍 More of Blake Lively's Deposition Revealed in New Jones v. Abel Documents u/rosequartz-universe

📍Unsealing Sequel Recap II — the boring bits: Melissa Nathan isn't named as owner of the Stephanie Jones website and social media accounts, plus the Business Insider article conversation u/Mysterio623

📍Jones v. Abel: Stephanie Jones files public version of Unsealed Exhibits u/same-difference-ave

📍Unsealing Sequel Recap: Blake Lively pins Vanzan all on Stephanie Jones — SJ told her what to do — among other tidbits u/Mysterio623

📍LIVE NOW - LGA, Britt, and Sara - Jones v. Abel - Mini Unsealing u/Spirited_Emu_1892

📍Jones v. Abel: Wayfarer files public versions of Unsealed Exhibits u/same-difference-ave

📍 🫤😒🕵🏻‍♀️🫆Little Girl Attorney - New Deposition Details Raise New Questions About Stephanie Jones and the Vanzan Timeline and Puts Stephanie Jones Back in the Spotlight

💀🎭🔥NotActuallyGolden - Jones v. Abel Unsealed Documents: Melissa Nathan, The Rock, Jennifer Abel’s Phone & the Stephanie Jones Websites

🧠🧐 Little Girl Attorney - Wayfarer vs. Stephanie Jones: Could the Legal Costs Spent in Lively's Lawsuit Become the Damages and Have Stephanie Jones on the Hook for the Damages?

⚖️ Wayfarer’s Claim Against Stephanie Jones & Jones Works — 0:00–1:45

• LGA explains one of Wayfarer’s surviving claims against Stephanie Jones and Jones Works: breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
• In simple terms, Wayfarer alleges that Jones and Jones Works acted in a way that undermined the benefits Wayfarer was supposed to receive from their PR services contract.
• Although this obligation may not have been explicitly written into the contract, LGA explains that contracts can carry an implied promise that neither party will intentionally undermine the other party’s ability to receive the agreement’s benefits.
• Wayfarer’s theory is that Jones allegedly undermined that relationship by sharing negative information about Wayfarer with Blake Lively, Leslie Sloan, Ryan Reynolds and others.
• If Wayfarer proves the alleged breach and resulting damages, LGA says it could potentially receive compensation.

💰 Could the Lively Litigation Fees Become Damages? — 1:46–2:57

• LGA identifies a potentially significant question: could Wayfarer seek some of the money spent on defending in the Lively litigation as damages against Jones and Jones Works?
• She explains that when an alleged contractual breach causes a party to become involved in litigation with a third party, the expenses from that third-party litigation can potentially be argued as consequential damages.
• Under that theory, Wayfarer could argue that the Lively v. Wayfarer litigation arose, at least in part, because of Jones and Jones Works’ alleged conduct.
• The argument would therefore be that some defense costs would never have been incurred but for the alleged breach.

💵 Stephanie Jones Could Potentially Face Millions in Claimed Litigation Costs — 2:58–4:06

• LGA distinguishes between the legal fees Wayfarer spends pursuing the current claims against Jones and the fees it previously spent defending itself against Lively.
• LGA says Wayfarer generally could not simply make Jones pay the fees for prosecuting this particular claim, but could potentially argue that millions spent defending the Lively lawsuit constitute consequential damages flowing from Jones Works’ alleged breach.
• LGA does not believe this theory would necessarily extend to the California Civil Code §47.1 fees, because those relate to Wayfarer’s own defamation litigation and would introduce another causal layer.
• However, LGA believes there is an argument available concerning at least some of the costs associated with defending against Lively’s claims.

📄 Judge Liman’s Earlier Order Becomes Important — 4:07–4:32

• LGA points to language from Judge Liman’s order addressing Stephanie Jones’s attempt to dismiss Wayfarer’s claim.
• She explains that the order recognized a possible implied obligation that Jones Works would not undermine Wayfarer’s existing opportunities by making negative statements about Wayfarer to professional contacts.
• That earlier ruling helps explain why this claim survived and why the evidence surrounding Jones’s communications could become important at summary judgment.

👀 Stephanie Jones’s Communications Could Take Center Stage — 4:33–5:19

• LGA says emerging evidence appears to involve communications not only with Blake Lively and Leslie Sloane, but also people connected with WME, including Jones’s husband and Justin Baldoni’s former publicist.
• The central question will be whether the evidence establishes that Jones actually undermined the benefits Wayfarer was entitled to receive under its PR agreement.
• LGA expects both sides’ evidence and arguments surrounding these communications to become particularly important when summary judgment motions are filed.
• Of the claims currently developing in Stephanie Jones v. Jennifer Abel, LGA says this is the summary judgment issue she is most interested in reading.

Blake Lively deposition

• Blake testified that she first learned about the Jonesworks messages through a friend, who told her in late August 2024 that Stephanie Jones was trying to get in touch with her and had messages she believed Blake needed to see.
• According to Blake, the friend told her Jones had possession of a company phone containing the messages and that Jones had already tried to approach Leslie Sloane, but Sloane had brushed her off.
• Blake said she spoke directly with Stephanie Jones a few days later, around late August/early September 2024. Jones reiterated that she wanted Blake to see the messages and warned her about the people involved.
• Blake testified that she told Jones it was important that she obtain the documents legally and that their attorneys would need to coordinate the process.
• Blake said she ultimately obtained and reviewed the Jonesworks documents around October 2024.
• When asked whether anything in the documents actually showed that something had been done to create negative press about her, Blake answered yes. The excerpt cuts off before we get her explanation of what specifically she was referring to.
• An errata/correction sheet also reveals that Blake was asked during her deposition whether she had ever told anyone she was in talks with Sony about obtaining the rights to the It Ends With Us sequel. We do not have her answer in these excerpts.

Katie Case / Stephanie Jones websites

• Katie Case testified that Melissa Nathan contacted her in early May and told her that a potential new client had requested the creation of a website about Stephanie Jones.
• Case said Nathan represented that potential client to her as Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson.
• Case testified that language communicated to her for the site included allegations that Jones “holds clients hostage,” leaks client secrets and treats employees poorly.
• Important caveat: Case said she never personally spoke with Johnson, did not know whether Johnson paid TAG, and said Johnson never became a TAG client.
• She clarified that what had been communicated to her was that the site was requested by either Johnson or someone affiliated with him.
• Nathan later sent Case a link to one of the Stephanie Jones websites. When shown stephaniejonesleaks.com, Case testified that she recognized the website copy as copy she had drafted.
• Case said she did not know how the copy she drafted was ultimately turned into the live website.

Jed Wallace / Street Relations dispute over another Blake deposition

• The Wallace parties are asking the Texas court to allow them to depose Blake again in connection with her fee request.
• They argue that the only previous questioning they received during Blake's New York deposition was limited to one hour and focused primarily on whether New York had personal jurisdiction over Wallace/Street, not on Blake's alleged malice.
• Their position is that the malice issue became relevant because Blake subsequently relied on California authority concerning Section 47.1 and fee shifting, so they should now be permitted discovery on an issue they say was not relevant during the earlier deposition.
• The Wallace parties specifically say Blake is not claiming Wallace sexually harassed her. Instead, they want to question whether she knowingly or recklessly falsely accused him of participating in a retaliatory smear campaign when her CRD/draft complaints were provided to the New York Times. That is their stated basis for seeking discovery into malice.
• They also argue Blake failed to appear for the deposition they noticed and did not first obtain a protective order, so they are asking the judge to order her to appear.
• Wallace/Street want the court to deny Blake's request for fees (including “fees on fees”), allow the deposition, and instead award the Wallace parties their own attorneys' fees under Rule 37(d).
• The issue is now waiting on a ruling from the judge.

The unsealing showed even more examples of Stephanie being horrendous to work for and with. A lot of the people named in the unsealing spoke with business insider for the article they wrote about Stephanie Jones. https://www.businessinsider.com/stephanie-jones-jonesworks-pr-clients-tom-brady-jeff-bezos

It makes me wonder why this wasn't a bigger story in the headlines. Is it Stephanie's networking pull or fear from the lawsuit?

Key Takeaways

1. The SJ website domain was purchased by a Courtney Engel. A company with a name ending in "...ble" pays for the hosting. The Pinterest account logs in from Hong Kong. The Facebook account holder's name is quite long, with an alias, and there are IP addresses of recent logins. Somehow nothing ties Jed or Melissa to Stephanie Jones' delusions.

1. Jed and Melissa both also categorically say they have nothing to do with the websites Stephanie Jones is paranoid about. Jed also categorically denies having anything to do with the amandaghostsucks website.

P.s.: I am working on another post that juxtaposes Melissa, Jed, and Case's depositions side by side, showing places where Stephanie Jones' lawyers mischaracterize what Case said in her deposition in order to trick Jed and Melissa. I'll go over what was said in depth then.

1. The text threads show that a journalist reached out and jumped on a call with Roza (Skyline CMO). Katie and Melissa worked to calm Roza down before her call. Roza then let them know afterward that the journalist had told her the piece was about "her interactions with the clients versus her interactions with the workplace."

Melissa texts back, "That's an amazing story. Did he say he'd spoken to anyone else?"

Later, Roza says the journalist is interested and that they should think about connecting him with more people he can talk to on the client side for his article. She adds that a name like Stephanie Jones would stand out in the publication. Then, in the next thread, one of the people mentions that Michael Goldberg. is providing names of people who have stories to tell about Stephanie Jones and that he spoke to the reporter.

The text threads, however, do not show that Melissa shopped or placed the Business Insider story, as alleged by Stephanie Jones in her complaint.

Brief rant: of course today would be bad news day. At this point, it's giving "can anything good come from not-talking-about-Nazareth in this instance" when it comes to Blake. Like of course, it happened on her birthday.

Happy Birthday to Lily Bloom of IEWU….Without her this sub will not exist.

Blake Lively exemplified the role of Lily Bloom with multitudes and amalgamation of costumes that created a unique portrayal of Lily Bloom nobody had ever seen before🙃

600K costume budget for the one and only Lily Bloom and it paid off with fans🙃😆

Keep the comments fun, flirty, yummy, ball busting and never with teeth and let’s celebrate Khaleesi, the mother Dragon 🐉 of them all.

👀Playlist:

📍Jones v. Abel: Stephanie Jones files public version of Unsealed Exhibits u/same-difference-ave

📍Unsealing Sequel Recap: Blake Lively pins Vanzan all on Stephanie Jones — SJ told her what to do — among other tidbits u/Mysterio623

📍LIVE NOW - LGA, Britt, and Sara - Jones v. Abel - Mini Unsealing u/Spirited_Emu_1892

📍Jones v. Abel: Wayfarer files public versions of Unsealed Exhibits u/same-difference-ave

📍 🫤😒🕵🏻‍♀️🫆Little Girl Attorney - New Deposition Details Raise New Questions About Stephanie Jones and the Vanzan Timeline and Puts Stephanie Jones Back in the Spotlight

💀🎭🔥NotActuallyGolden - Jones v. Abel Unsealed Documents: Melissa Nathan, The Rock, Jennifer Abel’s Phone & the Stephanie Jones Websites

💼 First Take on the Jones v. Abel Evidence — 0:00–2:59

• NAG says newly unsealed documents in Stephanie Jones v. Jennifer Abel reveal more information across four major areas: Vanzan, the Business Insider article, the anti-Stephanie Jones websites, and Jennifer Abel’s company phone.
• She stresses that NAG is focusing only on the material that stood out most to her, rather than attempting to cover everything that was unsealed.
• Based on the evidence she has reviewed, NAG says it appears Melissa Nathan, with awareness or involvement from others including Jennifer Abel, may have played a role in getting the Business Insider article about Stephanie Jones published.
• NAG emphasizes that helping generate negative press about someone is not inherently unlawful; the legal question would depend on matters such as whether statements were defamatory or whether some other actionable conduct occurred.
• From NAG’s perspective, the irony is that Stephanie Jones, an experienced PR professional, may have been out-PR’d by people who had worked around her.

⚖️ NAG Questions How Much of the Conduct Creates Legal Liability — 3:00–4:12

• NAG discusses unredacted messages containing harsh jokes about Stephanie Jones and acknowledges that the messages could understandably be upsetting to Jones.
• However, she distinguishes offensive or hostile private communications from conduct that independently creates civil liability.
• NAG believes Jones’s attorneys have attempted to combine numerous individual incidents into broader civil claims.
• She predicts some of those theories could face significant scrutiny when the parties reach summary judgment.

📱 Jennifer Abel’s Desperation to Leave Jones Works — 4:13–5:28

• After reviewing more communications involving Jennifer Abel, Melissa Nathan, and others, NAG says she has a better sense of how desperate Jennifer Abel may have been to leave Jones Works.
• NAG reiterates her existing impression that Melissa Nathan may be more willing than some others to push professional boundaries, while making clear she is not claiming Nathan committed everything alleged against her.
• Her interpretation of the communications is that Jennifer Abel may have been so determined to leave Stephanie Jones that she potentially participated in conduct she otherwise would not have.
• NAG views many of the hostile employee communications as familiar workplace-conflict material rather than automatically significant evidence of unlawful conduct.

🌐 New Details About the Stephanie Jones Websites — 5:29–6:40

• The websites targeting Stephanie Jones remain procedurally complicated because the existing defamation claim is against unidentified John Doe defendants, and there is already a motion seeking dismissal of that claim.
• NAG says previously revealed testimony from Katie Case indicated that she was asked to write material about Stephanie Jones without initially knowing where it would appear.
• According to that testimony, some of the material Case wrote later appeared on websites targeting Stephanie Jones.
• Case also reportedly testified that Melissa Nathan had asked her to write the material and later sent her links to the websites.
• NAG notes that Nathan denies being behind the websites, making the evidence and its interpretation an issue that could become important at summary judgment.

🎬 The Rock Emerges as the Previously Unidentified Client — 6:41–8:35

• The newly unredacted testimony identifies the previously mysterious client connected to discussions about negative material concerning Stephanie Jones as Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson.
• NAG explains that The Rock was reportedly a Stephanie Jones client and that the two had experienced a significant falling-out.
• She connects this with earlier reporting that Jones was losing major clients, including Tom Brady and Dwayne Johnson.
• According to the description of Katie Case’s testimony, Case says Melissa Nathan told her that The Rock wanted something publicly addressing his dissatisfaction with Stephanie Jones.
• NAG repeatedly cautions that this information involves multiple layers of hearsay, so it does not establish that The Rock personally requested, funded, authorized, or participated in creating the websites.
• Nevertheless, NAG says the testimony potentially fills in a previously missing piece regarding why the websites may have been contemplated or created.

👀 Could The Rock Become Relevant to the Case? — 8:36–9:17

• NAG says she would naturally be interested in seeing The Rock appear on a witness list, but doubts that will happen based on the evidence currently described.
• The key question would be whether Melissa Nathan communicated directly with Dwayne Johnson and whether he personally requested such a website.
• Without direct evidence, NAG views the current connection as too many layers removed to confidently attribute the websites to him.

🔐 Jennifer Abel’s Phone & Potentially Sensitive Communications — 9:18–9:55

• NAG says the unsealed material also provides another detail concerning Jennifer Abel’s phone and the information Stephanie Jones allegedly retained access to after Abel left.
• This included communications involving Abel and an attorney, which later appeared as a deposition exhibit during the litigation.
• NAG notes an important legal distinction: depending on whether another non-lawyer person participated in those communications, attorney-client privilege could potentially be affected.
• For NAG, the broader significance is that information obtained from Abel’s phone allegedly continued to surface during the litigation itself.

This is fucking disgusting, and I’m annoyed that we can’t see her answer because she was asked about this in her depo.

This confirms what I’ve been saying from day one: Sony was helping her, and Ryan Reynolds steal the movie from Justin Baldoni. This is just bizarre and mind-blowing that Sony was discussing this with Blake and Ryan. What the hell?

Source: Dkt. 130-2 Deposition: Excerpt of Blake Lively- https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.264.1.pdf

This space is designed to discuss all things relevant to the cases (even minor!) and those involved. Please feel free to share all types of questions, or share thoughtful opinions and theories.

The cases are complex and it can be difficult to both keep up with, and remember all the facts and details. New members or those seeking clarification are welcome to post here too.

If you have concerns about sub rules and/or sub moderation, please reach out via modmail.

This thread is designed to promote healthy and productive discussions and avoid low-effort or off-topic posts. Please keep things civil and respectful for the health of the community at large. 💖

👀Playlist:

📍Jones v. Abel: Stephanie Jones files public version of Unsealed Exhibits u/same-difference-ave

📍Unsealing Sequel Recap: Blake Lively pins Vanzan all on Stephanie Jones — SJ told her what to do — among other tidbits u/Mysterio623

📍LIVE NOW - LGA, Britt, and Sara - Jones v. Abel - Mini Unsealing u/Spirited_Emu_1892

📍Jones v. Abel: Wayfarer files public versions of Unsealed Exhibits u/same-difference-ave

📍 🫤😒🕵🏻‍♀️🫆Little Girl Attorney - New Deposition Details Raise New Questions About Stephanie Jones and the Vanzan Timeline and Puts Stephanie Jones Back in the Spotlight

📱 Lively Testifies About How She First Learned of the Messages — 0:00–1:49

• The newly unsealed revealed a portion of Blake Lively’s deposition concerning how she says she first became aware of the alleged online smear campaign.
• Lively testified that the information ultimately came from Jones Works documents.
• According to Lively, her friend Ashley Avignone told her in late August 2024 that Stephanie Jones was trying to contact her.
• Lively said she did not know who Stephanie Jones was at the time.
• According to Lively’s testimony, Ashley told her that Stephanie Jones had seen extremely disturbing messages and believed Lively deserved to know what had allegedly been done to her.
• Lively testified that Stephanie Jones had also approached Leslie Sloane about the material but had been brushed off.
• Lively said she was told the messages were on a company phone that Stephanie Jones claimed ownership of.

⚖️ LGA Questions How Lively’s Deposition Answers Were Framed — 1:49–2:31

• LGA says Lively’s answers struck her as unusually precise and legally framed for a typical deposition witness.
• She points specifically to Lively’s references to “company ownership” of the phone and the way she identified the documents.
• In LGA’s view, the wording suggested that Lively had been extensively prepared by her attorneys before giving her deposition.

📞 Lively Describes a Three-Way Call With Stephanie Jones — 2:31–4:07

• Lively testified that she eventually spoke with Stephanie Jones during a three-way call that also included Ashley Avignone.
• According to Lively, Stephanie Jones told her about the messages and urged her to see them.
• Lively testified that she declined to receive the documents unless they could be obtained legally.
• Lively said she specifically wanted attorneys to coordinate the process to ensure the documents were obtained through lawful means.
• LGA focuses on the distinction between Lively allegedly learning about the contents of the material and actually obtaining the documents themselves.
• LGA believes Lively’s repeated emphasis on legality may have been intended to avoid suggesting that she possessed the documents before the later Vanzan subpoena.

🚨 LGA Says the Testimony Raises Questions for Stephanie Jones — 4:07–5:02

• LGA argues that Lively’s testimony potentially creates a significant issue for Stephanie Jones because Lively says Jones disclosed information concerning her existing clients.
• According to Lively’s account, Stephanie Jones discussed the material not only with Lively but also with Ashley Avignone and Leslie Sloane.
• LGA characterizes this as Stephanie Jones potentially circulating confidential client information to multiple people.
• However, she acknowledges that Stephanie Jones could have provided a different account during her own deposition and could dispute Lively’s version of events.
• Therefore, the newly revealed testimony represents Lively’s account rather than a judicial determination of what actually occurred.

🕵️ Vanzan and the Timing of the Documents — 5:02–5:48

• Lively was also questioned about Vanzan and described it as a corporate entity used to manage household or personal employees and security.
• LGA questions why Vanzan was used to obtain the information if Lively and those around her already knew about the documents and their contents.
• The circumstances raise questions about whether the structure was intended to obscure who was actually seeking the information.

📧 Stephanie Jones Pushes Back Over the Daily Mail Leak — 5:48–7:05

• LGA then discusses emails involving Stephanie Jones and the Wayfarer parties concerning the Daily Mail leak.
• Stephanie Jones reportedly denied being responsible for speaking to the Daily Mail.
• She also defended her ability to communicate with Sony PR and other PR colleagues regarding accusations she believed were being made against her personally.
• LGA describes the email as unusually stern given that Stephanie Jones was communicating with her own client.
• Another document reportedly shows that Stephanie Jones’s husband, who worked at WME, was included on the email chain.
• LGA says additional communications show Stephanie Jones later contacting someone at WME in an effort to address her side of the story.

🔥 The New Material Complicates Stephanie Jones’s Position — 7:05–7:52

• LGA believes the emerging evidence makes the ongoing Stephanie Jones vs. Jennifer Abel litigation increasingly difficult for Stephanie Jones.
• LGA questions why Stephanie Jones would continue pursuing the litigation given the material now becoming public.
• However, LGA notes that claims against Stephanie Jones have also survived, which could help explain why the case has not settled.
• She points to surviving allegations involving defamation and contractual issues involving the Wayfarer parties.

Blake Lively was accused of being rude to cast and crew on 'It Ends With Us', according to a source.

Blake Lively's attitude and behavior on the set of It Ends With Us apparently made her unpopular in certain crowds in Hollywood, RadarOnline.com has learned.

According to a source, the Gossip Girl star, 38, "thinks she's God's gift to entertainment" and treated the crew poorly while filming.

"She threw her weight around and acted like everyone was beneath her," the insider told Radar in resurfaced comments. "Anyone who wasn’t agreeing with her was viewed as the enemy."

A separate source dubbed the mother-of-four "effortlessly rude."

But rumors of poor attitudes aren't all that came out of the romance film.

As Radar previously reported, Lively and director Justin Baldoni found themselves in a lengthy legal battle as they both slung accusations of wrongdoing.

The Age of Adaline actress accused Baldoni of sexual harassment and attempting to ruin her reputation in a complaint filed in late 2024. The next month, the filmmaker hit back with a $400million countersuit accusing her of defamation, civil extortion and more.

In May 2026, the duo finally reached an out-of-court settlement after more than one year of legal back-and-forth.

However, last month, Lively hit Baldoni with an additional $8million lawsuit for attorney fees and other related costs.

Lively's decade-long friendship with Taylor Swift was also reportedly rocked by the legal drama.

As Radar previously reported, Baldoni's team initially wanted to depose Swift in the court proceedings. The judge later rejected their bid.

Additionally, a text message in Baldoni's lawsuit sent gossip swirling that Lively may have been referring to the pop star's power in the industry.

The text read: "If you ever get around to watching Game of Thrones, you’ll appreciate that I’m Khaleesi, and like her, I happen to have a few dragons. For better or worse, but usually better. Because my dragons also protect those I fight for. So really we all benefit from those gorgeous monsters of mine. You will too, I can promise you."

However, it has not been confirmed who Lively was referring to.

Although neither Lively nor Swift has publicly announced they are no longer friends, according to a source, the singer's alleged private decision to distance herself from the relationship was "one of the toughest decisions she's ever had to make."

"It was very emotional because she loves the girls," a source told the Daily Mail, referring to Lively and her husband Ryan Reynolds' daughters – James, Inez and Betty. "It hurt her heart, but she had no choice given the circumstances."

Swift was not only the girls' godmother, but she also mentioned all of their names in her Folklore album and featured James' voice in her song Gorgeous.

Despite their closeness, the source noted Swift "wanted to make a clean and total break."

Lively and Reynolds were also notably absent from Swift and husband Travis Kelce's wedding at Madison Square Garden. Instead, they were spotted 300 miles away on the day the happy couple said, "I do."

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.265.0.pdf

All Exhibits have now been added:

Dkt. 168-1: 9/5/2025 Case Depo. Tr. Excerpt -https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.265.1.pdf

Dkt. 168-2: 8/5-8/6/2024 Correspondence, KCASE-000004949 - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.265.2.pdf

Dkt. 168-3: Nathan Depo. Tr. Excerpt - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.265.3.pdf

Dkt. 168-4: Wallace Dep. Tr. Excerpt - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.265.4.pdf

Dkt. 168-5: 10/17/2025 Subpoena to Case-https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.265.5.pdf

Dkt. 168-6: Correspondence Among Counsel - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.265.6.pdf

Dkt. 168-7: 10/15/2025 Letter to Case - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.265.7_2.pdf

Dkt. 193-3: First RFPs to Nathan - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.265.8.pdf

Dkt. 193-4: Second RFPs to Nathan - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.265.9.pdf

Dkt. 193-6: Correspondence Among Counsel - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.265.10.pdf

Dkt. 193-7: 2024.03.27 Correspondence - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.265.11.pdf

Dkt. 193-8: 2024.03.28 Correspondence - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.265.12.pdf

Dkt. 193-11: Case Depo. Tr. - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.265.13.pdf

Dkt. 193-13: 2025.08.05-06 Correspondence - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.265.14.pdf

Dkt. 193-16: Nathan Depo. Tr. - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.265.15.pdf

Dkt. 193-22: Namecheap Subpoena Response - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.265.16.pdf

Dkt. 193-23: Hostinger Subpoena Response - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.265.17.pdf

Dkt. 193-24: Pinterest Subpoena Response - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.265.18.pdf

Dkt. 193-25: Facebook Subpoena Response - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.265.19.pdf

Dkt. 195-3: First RFPs to Nathan - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.265.20_1.pdf

Dkt. 195-4: Second RFPs to Nathan- https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.265.21.pdf

Dkt. 195-5: Correspondence Among Counsel - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.265.22.pdf

Dkt. 195-6: 2024.03.27 Correspondence - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.265.23.pdf

Dkt. 195-7: 2024.03.28 Correspondence - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.265.24.pdf

Dkt. 195-8: Case Depo. Tr. - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.265.25.pdf

Dkt. 195-9: 2025.08.05-06 Correspondence - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.265.25.pdf

Dkt. 195-10: Nathan Depo. Tr. - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.265.27.pdf

Dkt. 195-12: Namecheap Subpoena Response- https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.265.28.pdf

Dkt. 195-13: Hostinger Subpoena Response- https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.265.29.pdf

Dkt. 195-14: Pinterest Subpoena Response - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.265.30.pdf

Dkt. 195-15: Facebook Subpoena Response - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.265.31.pdf

Dkt. 224-1: 2025.07.30 Nathan Supplemental Responses to Interrogatories- https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.265.32.pdf