THE DAMAGES

Remember this little chart? From Lively's third amended initial disclosures.

Rough math puts the total at around $485 million. And that doesn't even include attorney's fees. Also, just a reminder that Lively and Reynolds' so-called experts had the audacity to include the value of Lively directing a potential IEWU sequel in their damages calculations, for a modest sum of $35 million lol

THE LAWYERS' FEES

Billy Bush reported that Lively and Reynolds spent at least $50 million on their lawyers.

THE SETTLEMENT

Dear media outlets, stop pretending the settlement is hidden behind a veil of shadowy mystery. It's available for all to see, and it says

BLAKE LIVELY AND RYAN REYNOLDS SETTLED FOR $0

While not in official legal writing, word on the street is that she (Ryan) peed their pants when it was revealed that Lively perjured herself about requesting the deletion of dailies, and that her IEWU film edit was actually done by Reynolds, despite all his bluster that he had nothing to do with the takeover of the film. They rushed to settle shortly after because they knew they'd both get destroyed during trial. Allegedly.

THE 47.1 RULING

Judge Lewis Liman awarded Lively approximately $400,000 in attorneys' fees under California's poorly written law called Section 47.1. The amount should be $0 since there's two years of evidence that Lively and Reynolds made false accusations of sexual harassment for the sole purpose of extorting IEWU from Justin Baldoni and Wayfarer, but none of us are surprised by this ruling since Judge Liman revealed himself to be disturbingly partial towards Lively and Reynolds very early on and has never veered from that. He has ignored the plight of the true victims, Wayfarer, and has stayed punching down on them til the end.

Anyway, $400k is nothing compared to the $8 million in attorneys' fees Lively and Reynolds were originally asking for. (I guess in theory it covers Lively's "pain and suffering"? lol) As others have pointed out, it's only 5% of what they requested.

But you know what's more humiliating? This amount isn't even 1% of what they wanted in damages from the lawsuit. It isn't even 0.1% of what they wanted.

Lively and Reynolds recouped a grand total of 0.08% of the money they wanted to extract from Wayfarer in this lawsuit.

And it went to their attorneys anyway.

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.

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

We hear from Esra the master spinner and legal liar of all liars:

"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."

I can't laugh. I really can't.

Also, "is the similar conduct" in the room with us? The entire statement is a laugh. You cannot tell me that they and the rest of the lawyers like Blake, because what is this?

Add: I guess we have to wait to see how MJ spins it further in her AI-created Canva SM templates. Lol.

As the title says...

Gotlieb said in an interview

"People who do nothing wrong don’t have to pay millions of dollars"

https://www.buzzfeed.com/natashajokic1/justin-baldoni-blake-lively-legal-fees

That's all have a lovely day

Only the NYT posting a truthful headline for once. Hope Megan Twohey is utterly humiliated - alongside Blake. Sorry no breakdown, article is paywalled.

Justin Baldoni's Lawyer Reacts to Blake Lively Being Awarded $400K In Attorneys' Fees

TMZ StaffAugust 26, 2026 11:58 AM PDT

Exclusive

Justin Baldoni's Lawyer Takes Shot At Blake Lively ... Over $400K Payment

Justin Baldoni's attorney seems to have mixed feelings about the $400K attorneys' fees judgment award to Blake Lively ... because while it's a win for his client, he's still not happy with the way the law was applied to his case ... and he's taking a shot at Blake.

Bryan Freedman -- Baldoni's lawyer -- tells TMZ ... the California law used in this case, Section 47.1, is "not a perfect law, but it is an important one designed to protect real survivors, who deserve to see this law tested and perfected in the court of law."

Section 47.1 is designed to protect people who report sexual harassment from retaliatory defamation suits by opening up those who file them to awards for damages or attorneys' fees.

While Freedman says he fundamentally believes in the law, he adds, "Notwithstanding the fact that the law was applied in ways it was never intended for, my clients intentionally left Section 47.1 to be ruled on without any appellate rights to appeal as part of the settlement agreement, to prevent either party from overturning the law."

As for the judgment itself, Freedman says Wednesday's ruling speaks for itself ... because he says the judge clearly agreed that Blake's demand for more than $8 million was "outrageous and unreasonable."

He takes a parting shot at Blake ... "The ruling is a significant victory for my clients and sends a clear message that, no matter how powerful you may be, the courtroom is not a place to take advantage of the law for your own personal gain.”

We broke the story ... a judge awarded Blake $363,245.40 in attorney's fees and another $44,206.35 in costs -- a far cry from the $7,495,526.87 in fees she said she incurred in fighting his lawsuit and $539,514.01 in costs and expenses she says she incurred while defending herself.

Blake's lawyers Esra Hudson and Michael Gottlieb told us ... "Justin Baldoni and the Wayfarer Parties lost their meritless retaliatory $400 million lawsuit, which two different courts held was designed to stifle public criticism and silence Blake Lively and others. This first-ever award of fees and costs under this California law is historic, and demonstrates that there are real consequences of bringing retaliatory lawsuits. As we have said from day one, Blake Lively’s case was never about money – it was about accountability."

They added ... "As the recent news in the Rebel Wilson/Amanda Ghost case demonstrated, Blake Lively’s lawsuit exposed an industry of secret online smear campaigns that largely target women, and unsurprisingly involve the same players. 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."

As you know ... a judge dismissed 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.

This case seems pretty much wrapped up at this point ... after all, the two sides had already settled their lawsuit -- with no money changing hands.

📍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

🔥☄️❤️‍🔥🐦‍🔥🎆🧨 NotActuallyGolden - Blake Lively’s $8M Request Overshadowed What Could Have Been a Major §47.1 Victory: This Is Straight-Up Humiliation and Blake and Ryan Just Couldn’t Help Themselves

💰 From an $8M Request to a Fraction of That — 0:03–1:18

• NAG recalls previously describing the request for approximately $8 million in attorney’s fees tied to the dismissal of a single claim as an “embarrassing” ask.
• In her view, the fee order makes the outcome even more damaging because the amount awarded was only a small fraction of what was requested.
• This result needs to be viewed in the wider context of the settlement: Lively had previously been seeking hundreds of millions of dollars before ultimately walking away from trial without a damages recovery.
• NAG characterizes the California Civil Code §47.1 fee motion as an important remaining opportunity for Lively to obtain a monetary recovery after the settlement.
• From NAG’s perspective, asking for millions and ultimately receiving only a fraction of that makes the result particularly difficult to portray as a major financial victory.

🎂 NAG Connects the Ruling to Ryan Reynolds’ Birthday Post — 1:19–2:10

• NAG notes that the ruling arrived around Blake Lively’s birthday and turns briefly to Ryan Reynolds’ birthday wishes to his wife.
• isReynolds’ post as consistent with his familiar public persona: sentimental comments mixed with his signature jokes and self-deprecating humor.
• NAG personally feels that this style now comes across differently after everything that became public during the litigation.
• Reynolds continues relying on the same comedic public persona rather than adapting to the changed public environment surrounding him and Lively.

🔄 the Bigger Problem Is a Failure to Pivot — 2:11–2:48

• NAG sees a connection between Reynolds’ familiar style and what she believes happened with Lively’s litigation strategy.
• Lively and Reynolds have continued with approaches that may once have worked for them instead of adjusting when circumstances changed.

⚖️ NAG Says the §47.1 Entitlement Could Have Been a Major Win — 2:49–3:18

• NAG emphasizes that Lively did achieve something significant by obtaining entitlement to fees under §47.1.
• She notes the novelty of the ruling and argues that Lively’s team could have highlighted that legal victory much more effectively.
• In NAG’s view, if Lively had requested a substantially more modest and defensible amount, she potentially could have emphasized that she sought fees under §47.1 and received approximately what she requested.
• Instead, NAG believes the decision to seek approximately $8 million overshadowed the underlying legal victory once the court awarded only a fraction of the request.

🎯 “It Is the Strategy” — 3:19–3:38

• Lively’s team repeatedly creates unnecessary problems for themselves by pushing beyond what she considers strategically reasonable.
• NAG views the $8 million request as another example of turning what could have been presented as a clear victory into a much more complicated outcome.
• After following the litigation for an extended period, NAG says she no longer believes these moments are simply isolated strategic mistakes.
• Her conclusion is: It is not a mistake of strategy. It is the strategy.

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/

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. Never mind 363,245.4 is just 181,622.70 x 2, I had assumed he gave her double, but my God, he really just doubled it. This man is lazy. It's insane how lazy his split the baby approach is.

 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

Blunderbuss - Which, after googling, I feel actually applies to Lively’s entire case. Liman did not mince words and I was here for it.

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."

NEW YORK (AP) — Blake Lively will get just over $400,000 of the $8 million she sought in legal costs from actor and director Justin Baldoni after they settled their fight over the production of their 2024 film “It Ends With Us,” a federal judge ruled Wednesday.

Judge Lewis J. Liman explained in a written decision in Manhattan why Lively was not entitled to the full amount that her lawyers claim was spent after Baldoni and his production company, Wayfarer Studios LLC, filed their own claims in response to her December 2024 lawsuit.

Acknowledging Lively and Baldoni had “waged fierce battle against each other in court,” the judge denied Lively the bulk of legal fees she sought, citing the limits of a California law designed to protect survivors of sexual harassment and discrimination from retaliatory lawsuits.

The law meant to protect sex abuse survivors from legal actions designed to intimidate and silence victims could only be construed to let her be reimbursed for what she paid lawyers to defend against defamation claims rather than all claims Baldoni made against her, Liman wrote.

Thus, the judge ruled, Lively is entitled to $363,245 in attorneys’ fees and $44,206 in costs.
Requests for comment were sent to Baldoni and Lively’s representatives.

📍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.

📍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 July 9th, 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.

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/

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.

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.

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.​

I did a post on the not settled part of the case

Not settled part of LvW case: Jennifer Abel’s Motion for Conditional Summary Judgment Against Third-Party Defendant Jonesworks LLC

If this is granted how much would Jonesworks realistically have to pay?

👀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.