Blake Lively demands MINI TRIAL to win ‘significant’ damages from Justin Baldoni for the harm to her reputation and lost job opportunities
Blake Lively claims she has the right to sue Justin Baldoni for damages even though their lawsuit has been settled.
The actress said at a hearing in federal court in Manhattan on Monday that she wants to call in experts to calculate Baldoni’s losses from an unsuccessful $400 million defamation lawsuit filed against him.
His lawyers said the amount he was demanding would be ‘very significant’ due to the damage to his reputation.
But Baldoni’s lawyers objected and said it would amount to an ‘alternative hearing’.
Even the court judge in New York was begging Lively to reconsider, telling her lawyers: ‘Your client has the authority to stop this.’
Lively is seeking payment of her legal fees as well as costs, treble damages and punitive damages.
Blake Lively, seen leaving a Manhattan courtroom after the settlement conference, is demanding that Justin Baldoni pay damages after he filed a $400 million defamation lawsuit against her
Baldoni, her It Ends With Us co-star and director, filed the lawsuit against Lively, her husband Ryan Reynolds, and the New York Times in January 2025, a month after Lively sued him for sexual harassment and a “smear campaign” against him for speaking out.
In April, a judge dismissed most of his lawsuit, including sexual harassment allegations, and weeks later both sides reached a settlement in which no money changed hands.
During the hearing, Lively’s lawyer, Michael Gottlieb, did not give an exact figure for the amount of damages they would seek.
However, ‘they will need expert evidence to gauge the scope of the claim arising from the complaint’ [by Baldoni] This branded Ms. Lively a liar.
Gottlieb acknowledged this when Judge Liman asked whether this also ‘includes business opportunities lost as a result of its dissemination and damage to reputation.’
Judge Liman seemed skeptical about such evidence being presented to the court outside the trial.
He said: ‘All without a jury?’
Gottlieb said it would be ‘perfectly appropriate’.
Gottlieb insisted that the law did indeed allow compensation for Lively, which was triggered by Baldoni suing him.
Baldoni’s attorney, Ellyn Garofalo, said there was “no evidence” that Lively was harmed by the defamation lawsuit.
He suggested that ‘reopening’ the case would mean an ‘alternative hearing’ and that could take a long time to resolve.
At times during the hearing, Judge Liman appeared to wrestle with how to interpret the law, which contains only one or two precedents given how new it is.
Judge Liman told both sides that he wasn’t trying to find ‘something that would work for all of you’ but instead was trying to find ‘a law that works’.
Speaking after the hearing, McCawley said Lively was determined to move on.
He said: ‘Damages [to Lively]It is very important.
‘When you look at the damage done to him, that’s what needs to be compensated, along with legal fees and costs, and mandatory law causes the problem.
Lively and Baldoni reportedly spent $60 million on lawyers during their legal battle, meaning the sum is likely to run into the millions.
Lively claimed $160 million in damages after she filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against Baldoni and launched a ‘smear campaign’ against him after she spoke out against Baldoni’s alleged behavior on the set of the movie, which was released in August 2024.
In April, a judge dismissed most of his lawsuit, including sexual harassment allegations, and weeks later both sides reached a settlement in which no money changed hands.
Monday’s hearing will be held in federal court in Manhattan, and both sides will be given half an hour to make their arguments.
If the trial had gone ahead, it would have taken place in the middle of what was expected to be a three-week trial.
Neither Lively nor Baldoni are expected to attend the event.
The relatively untested law on which Lively relies was passed in California in 2023 in response to the MeToo movement and is designed to stop defamation lawsuits against those who come forward with allegations of sexual impropriety.
Baldoni filed his lawsuit against Lively, her husband Ryan Reynolds, and the New York Times in January 2025, a month after Lively sued him.
He sought $400 million in damages for what he claimed were false allegations. The lawsuit was dismissed in November of last year because Lively initially filed her claims with the California Department of Civil Rights, saying they were protected by privilege.
One legal recourse Lively’s lawyer, Michael Gottlieb, said the relevant law allows for ‘severe and mandatory penalties against any party who files unsuccessful retaliatory defamation lawsuits against sexual harassment and retaliation complainants’.
Gottlieb wrote that as long as Lively made her comments “without malice” or truly believed them, she should be allowed to share her experiences without fear of being sued.
He wrote: ‘The California Legislature sought to deter lawsuits that would force survivors to defend against a lengthy and expensive retaliatory defamation suit by imposing ‘substantial remedies on successful defendants in defamation claims.’
Lively claimed $160 million in damages after she filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against Baldoni and launched a ‘smear campaign’ against him after she spoke out against Baldoni’s alleged behavior on the set of the movie, which was released in August 2024.
Lively’s lawyer said the relevant law allows for ‘severe and mandatory penalties against any party who files unsuccessful retaliatory defamation lawsuits against sexual harassment and retaliation complainants’.
Lively, who was spotted at the Met Gala just hours after her legal battle with Baldoni ended with no money exchanged, is seeking treble damages and punitive damages, as well as attorney’s fees plus costs. The total compensation amount requested by the actress remains unclear.
Gottlieb described Baldoni’s lawsuit against Lively as the “prototype case” that the law in question was designed to prevent.
‘Thus, as the dominant defendant, Ms. Lively is entitled not only to attorneys’ fees and costs, but also to treble damages and punitive damages,’ he wrote.
Lively’s actions have raised alarm among some First Amendment experts who say it could delay people from going to court.
Dustin Pusch, a lawyer who specializes in First Amendment cases, told the New York Times: ‘If you’ve been falsely accused of something serious, like sexual assault, sexual harassment, and you think you have a really strong case, this law will make you think twice about taking it to court and trying to protect your reputation.’
Another unusual element of the hearing is that neither side has the right to appeal once the judge has ruled.
