Lively, Baldoni dispute heads to fee hearing

What's happened

The Guardian, AP, and The Independent report that attorneys for Blake Lively have argued in New York that her request for attorney fees arises after a settlement with Justin Baldoni, who had sued for defamation and retaliation claims. Baldoni’s team says the motion would reopen a settled case. A judge has not yet ruled following arguments.

What's behind the headline?

Brief

The filings show a continuing dispute over the settlement's scope and what damages are recoverable.
The balance of leverage sits with Lively’s attorneys inside a settlement framework that limits trial exposure while preserving potential fees.
Expect the judge to weigh whether the fee application is permissible under the settlement and California law, with a ruling likely soon.

What this means

This is less about new facts of the defamation case and more about post-settlement financial terms and procedural access to damages.
The case illustrates how settlements can become living documents, with ongoing disputes about post-settlement remedies.

How we got here

Lively sued Baldoni and Wayfarer Studios in December 2024, alleging a campaign to ruin her reputation and to push for sex scenes not in the script. Baldoni and Wayfarer have countersued for extortion and defamation, which a judge previously dismissed in part. In May 2026 the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, with terms undisclosed.

Our analysis

The Guardian has reported on the ongoing fee dispute, with AFP contributing to background details. AP News and The Independent have summarized arguments from Ellyn Garofalo about the post-settlement motion. All outlets reference the same May 2026 settlement and the judge handling the case (U.S. District Judge Lewis J. Liman).

Go deeper

What are the potential outcomes for Lively’s fees request?
Could this affect Baldoni’s public image or the terms of the settlement?
Will a ruling set a precedent for post-settlement fee motions in defamation cases?