Blake Lively’s $8 Million Fee Claim Shrinks to $407,451

Judge Lewis J. Liman awarded Blake Lively $407,451.75 in fees and costs on Aug. 26. The sum is about 5% of the $8,035,040.88 she sought after beating Justin Baldoni’s defamation case over “It Ends With Us.”

Liman did not add up her firms’ hours. He took the Times’ $181,622.70 fee request on the same claim and doubled it, then added a thin slice of costs, according to the 21-page order from Manhattan federal court.

Judge Liman Doubled the Times’ Own Fee Bill

Lively asked for $7,495,526.87 in attorneys’ fees and $539,514.01 in costs. Willkie Farr & Gallagher and Manatt, Phelps & Phillips had defended her against Baldoni, Wayfarer Studios, and the other Wayfarer parties after they sued her, Ryan Reynolds, publicist Leslie Sloane, and Vision PR in January 2025.

Wayfarer told the court the $8.04 million figure was so inflated the motion should be denied outright, or cut to the Times’ $181,622.70 benchmark for “precisely the same defamation claim.” Liman wrote that Lively reasonably had to spend more than the paper, including on discovery and on the Section 47.1 briefing. He still refused to treat her full bill as the starting point.

The order instead doubled the New York Times fee request. That produced $363,245.40 in fees. Costs came in at $44,206.35. Together they equal $407,451.75, the judgment the clerk was told to enter.

THE FEE REQUEST AGAINST THE AWARD

A $400 million Wayfarer defamation complaint, dismissed on June 9, 2025, now ends with a check in that range. The arithmetic is the ruling. Liman said California courts start with a lodestar of reasonable hours times a reasonable rate, then found her hours request could not be trusted as that lodestar.

California’s New Privilege Pays Only for Defamation

The money rides on California Civil Code Section 47.1, added in 2023 and in force since Jan. 1, 2024. It makes a good-faith report of sexual assault, harassment, or discrimination a privileged communication, so long as the speaker had a reasonable basis to complain and did not act with malice.

SECTION 47.1 IN THE CODE

• The privilege: A communication made without malice about sexual assault, harassment, or discrimination is privileged under Section 47.
• The fee shift: A prevailing defendant in a defamation case over that communication is entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs for successfully defending the litigation.
• Extra remedies on paper: The same subsection also lists treble damages for harm caused by the defamation action, plus punitive damages under Section 3294.

Liman had already held, on June 12, 2026, that Lively was a prevailing defendant under that statute and that Wayfarer had not shown malice. He denied compensatory and punitive damages in the same opinion. Willkie later described that June ruling as the first federal award under Section 47.1 and the first time a prevailing defendant collected fees under the statute.

August was the quantum fight, and the judge called the statute’s wording ambiguous. Section 47.1 promises fees for defending “the litigation,” without saying whether that means the defamation count or every claim in a stacked complaint. Wayfarer had also pleaded civil extortion, implied-covenant breach, and interference with Baldoni’s agency relationship. Liman held the legislature meant to deter retaliatory libel suits, not to make a harassment accuser whole for every other tort parked in the same filing.

He cut off fees after June 9, 2025, the day the defamation claim died with prejudice. Work on Lively’s own case after that date, including the sexual harassment claims later dropped in the May settlement, sat outside the statute as he read it.

Eighty-Two Timekeepers and a Missing Invoice Stack

Counsel’s rates, Liman wrote, were not unreasonable. The case carried money and reputational risk, raised hard legal questions, and was “extremely well-litigated.” Willkie partners billed her at $1,551 to $2,795 an hour, with a 15% discount off standard rates. Manatt’s discounted partner rates ran from about $1,008 to $1,287. The judge left those numbers standing.

The hours did not survive. Lively sought fees for 82 timekeepers, 53 from Willkie and 29 from Manatt, and filed biographical and rate information for only 11 of them. The court said it had no basis to judge the other 71 and denied that part of the request. She submitted a fee expert’s declaration about the bills and did not file the invoices themselves.

The expert put $2,267,288.75 on motion practice in the Wayfarer case, wrapping in the motion to dismiss, a Rule 11 sanctions motion, and the 47.1 motion. Liman said that bucket was too wide. The same firms had also represented Reynolds, who filed his own motion to dismiss with a 29-page brief, and Lively could not collect for that work.

Vague entries, heavy redactions, and internal “legal strategy calls” made it worse. “Lively’s blunderbuss approach leaves the Court no way to determine precisely how many hours were reasonably incurred on common issues,” Liman wrote. California law lets a judge apply a steep discount when a party makes an outrageously unreasonable demand, so that the only price of overreaching is not a quiet trim down to a fair number.

WHAT THE COURT WOULD NOT PAY

• Press work: Time on client media appearances, coverage reviews, and media statements was out, because media relations were not integral to defending the defamation claim.
• Clerical tasks at lawyer rates: Filing help, case-tracker updates, and document indexing billed as attorney time were disallowed.
• Travel without a tie: Trips listed as “travel to/from client” or “Travel from DC to LA” with no linked proceeding did not count; travel for the Feb. 3, 2025 pretrial conference and the June 1, 2026 47.1 hearing did.
• Expert and research costs: $173,276.50 charged by GBX Holdings LLC for a reputation report, and $134,519.65 in Westlaw, Lexis, Bloomberg, and PACER charges, were barred as expert fees and investigation expenses under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1033.5.

On costs, Liman allowed $11,721.86 in travel tied to those two court dates, $154.80 in transcript fees, and one-sixth of pre-June 9 discovery-service bills, or $32,329.69. That is the entire $44,206.35.

Baldoni’s Lawyer Calls the 5% a Victory

Bryan Freedman, counsel for Baldoni and Wayfarer, treated the haircut as the result that mattered. He said the order spoke for itself and that the court had looked at an “outrageous and unreasonable” demand.

Judge Liman clearly considered the ‘outrageous and unreasonable’ $8 million plus demand and, in rejecting it, awarded only 5 percent of the amount sought in legal fees and costs. 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.

Bryan Freedman, attorney for Justin Baldoni and Wayfarer Studios

Lively’s lawyers Esra Hudson and Michael Gottlieb pointed at the statute, not the percentage. They said Baldoni and the Wayfarer parties had lost a “meritless retaliatory $400 million lawsuit, which two different courts held was designed to stifle public criticism and silence Blake Lively and others.” They called this the first award of fees and costs under the California law and said 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,” Hudson and Gottlieb said. They tied the case to other alleged secret online smear campaigns that, they said, largely target women, and argued the result showed the legal system still functions as a force for accountability.

Those two readings can sit on the same page because the order did both things. It entered a 47.1 fee judgment against the Wayfarer side. It also refused to let an $8.04 million blended bill, built across a whole Hollywood war, pass as the cost of beating one defamation count.

Reading the 5% as a total loss for Lively skips the fact that Baldoni’s camp still writes the check. Reading any payment as a knockout skips the ruler Liman actually used, the Times’ smaller ask, and his finding that her hours were unreasonable.

How the $8 Million Ask Got Cut

Lively’s June papers had described the $8,035,040.88 as “comprehensive and necessary to achieve the complete win that was secured.” Gottlieb’s declaration in that wave put his own average rate at $2,187 an hour, a discount from $2,795, and said he billed 224 hours on the defense to the countersuit.

The firms argued the Wayfarer work and Lively’s own case were “inextricably intertwined” through June 23, 2025, the deadline for Wayfarer to amend after the June 9 dismissal. They wanted fees on the motion to dismiss, on overlapping fact gathering, and on the 47.1 motion itself. Wayfarer’s July 13 opposition called the motion anything but typical and labeled rates up to $2,187 excessive.

Liman agreed with Wayfarer on scope. Defamation was one count among many, including alleged threats over production, marketing, a producer credit, and Baldoni’s premiere. Those other claims, he wrote, did not become fee-eligible because a libel count rode along. He also refused fees for defending a sanctions motion as if it were part of the defamation defense.

Once the hours could not be sorted, he declined to guess. Doubling the Times’ figure was his substitute for a reconstructed lodestar. The Times had defended the same alleged statements without Lively’s discovery load or her 47.1 briefing, so he gave her twice that number and stopped.

The May Deal Left a Single Open Claim

The fee fight was the last live piece of an 18-month docket that started with a California Civil Rights Department complaint and never reached a jury.

THE ROAD TO THE FEE JUDGMENT

1. December 20, 2024: Lively files an administrative complaint with the California Civil Rights Department accusing Baldoni and co-defendants of sexual harassment and retaliation tied to the film and its marketing.
2. December 31, 2024: She sues in Manhattan federal court on harassment, retaliation, contract, and related tort claims.
3. January 2025: The Wayfarer parties sue Lively, Reynolds, Sloane, and Vision PR; the Jan. 31 amended complaint adds the Times on defamation and related counts and seeks $400 million.
4. June 9, 2025: Liman dismisses the Wayfarer first amended complaint, with limited leave to replead two business torts that Wayfarer never refiled.
5. September 8, 2025: Lively moves for fees, treble damages, and punitive damages under Section 47.1.
6. May 2026: The parties settle on the eve of trial. No money changes hands. Lively drops the sexual harassment claims. The joint statement says the process “presented challenges” and that “concerns raised by Ms. Lively deserved to be heard,” and it keeps the 47.1 claim alive for the court, with no right of appeal.
7. June 12, 2026: Liman finds Lively entitled to reasonable fees and costs and denies damages.
8. August 26, 2026: He sets the number at $363,245.40 in fees and $44,206.35 in costs.

Before the May deal, Liman had already thrown out most of Lively’s own claims, including sexual harassment, on procedural grounds, while leaving some retaliation claims against corporate defendants on a path toward trial. The settlement ended that trial. The joint statement also said the film “is a source of pride to all of us who worked to bring it to life” and that raising awareness for domestic violence survivors was a goal both sides stand behind.

Hudson and Gottlieb’s “never about money” line now sits next to an $8.04 million fee petition and a $407,451.75 judgment. The clerk was directed to enter that judgment, and that is the last number the docket needed.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does the fee award cover Ryan Reynolds’s legal bills?

No. Liman noted that Willkie and Manatt also represented Reynolds, who filed a separate motion to dismiss backed by a 29-page memorandum, and held that Lively is not entitled to reimbursement for preparing and filing that motion.

Which litigation costs did the court actually allow?

Only three buckets: $11,721.86 in travel tied to the Feb. 3, 2025 pretrial conference and the June 1, 2026 Section 47.1 argument, $154.80 in transcript filing fees, and $32,329.69 as one-sixth of discovery-service expenses incurred before the June 9, 2025 dismissal, totaling $44,206.35.

Can either side appeal the $407,451.75 figure?

The May joint stipulation said the remaining Section 47.1 claim, including fees and the damages Lively still wanted at that time, was submitted to Liman with no right of appeal, so this quantum order was built as the end of that reserved claim.

When did California’s Section 47.1 take effect?

The section was added by Assembly Bill 933 as chaptered in 2023, Stats. 2023, Ch. 670, and became effective Jan. 1, 2024, which is why Lively could invoke it against a January 2025 defamation complaint about her 2024 reports.

Disclaimer: This article is news reporting and analysis of a published federal court order and related public filings. It is for information only and is not legal advice, a prediction of any other case, or a guide to filing or defending a fee motion. Anyone facing a defamation, harassment, or fee-shifting dispute should consult a licensed attorney in the relevant jurisdiction before acting on anything described here. The dollar figures, docket dates, and claim statuses reflect the Aug. 26, 2026 opinion and the sources reviewed for this piece and can change if a later order or filing modifies the judgment.