Judge Orders Attorney Fees for Blake Lively in Baldoni Defamation Case, With Damages Still Unresolved

Blake Lively will receive attorney fees and costs in her defamation lawsuit tied to publicity around the film It Ends With Us, after a federal judge issued a 47-page order granting part of her request for legal expenses. The ruling, issued by U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman on June 12, addressed reimbursement for the work performed during the litigation and the period of reputational fallout that followed the movie’s release cycle and subsequent allegations, according to the court decision discussed by Deadline.

The judge’s order stated that Lively “is entitled to fees and costs,” and it characterized the legal fight as one in which the parties’ positions and the case posture required judicial resolution on the fee issue even after the matter changed course. The order resolves an element of the case, but it does not complete the dispute’s financial picture for all claims, leaving other issues, including any remaining damages-related questions, not fully decided in the same order.

Deadline reported that the fee ruling comes after the parties reached an 11th-hour settlement in May. While the settlement ended the case’s progress at that time, the court continued to address the question of attorney fees and costs. In the June order, Liman’s decision is presented as “deeply reasoned,” and the length of the opinion indicates the judge addressed legal standards for awarding fees and costs in the context of the litigation history, including the timing of the parties’ resolution.

The dispute was publicly associated with the making and promotion of It Ends With Us, and the reporting described reputational consequences that became a central part of the litigation during the summer of 2024. The June order’s focus on fees and costs indicates the court treated legal expenditure as a consequential component of the case’s aftermath, even when the underlying claims were resolved later through settlement.

The next practical step for the parties is to determine the amount due under the court’s framework for fees and costs. Fee awards often require additional submissions or calculations after a court rules on entitlement, such as documentation of billing and allowable categories of work, though Deadline’s account centered on the judge’s finding of entitlement rather than the final dollar total.

For audiences and media industry observers, the decision is also part of a broader pattern in which high-profile entertainment disputes can produce continuing litigation even after settlement. Attorney-fee rulings can affect how future parties evaluate litigation risk, and they also determine whether one side bears the cost of the legal process, as a matter of enforceable court order rather than public statements.

The case remains one in which the settlement changed the status of the underlying claims, but the court’s June order makes clear that the fees and costs dispute was sufficiently developed to be decided separately. With Liman’s ruling, Lively’s legal team has at least a confirmed entitlement, while the broader financial outcome tied to damages and other unresolved aspects depended on what the settlement covered and what the court had left to decide.

As of the publication of Deadline’s report, the court’s specific monetary calculation for attorney fees and costs was not presented as a fully finalized final judgment in the same way as a damages number. The record therefore points to an incremental resolution, with the fee entitlement decided now and the remaining financial implementation and any related orders to follow within the federal case’s procedural timetable.