A Los Angeles Superior Court judge partially granted Blake Lively's request for Justin Baldoni to cover her attorney's fees after the It Ends With Us costars settled their legal battle out of court in May. According to court documents filed Wednesday, August 26, and obtained by Us, Lively's request was granted in part and denied in part. Lively, 39, was awarded $363,245.40 in attorneys' fees and $44,206.25 in additional costs.

This development marks the latest chapter in a long-standing dispute between Lively and Baldoni, which began in 2023 when Lively named Baldoni, her costar and director on It Ends With Us, in a lawsuit accusing him of sexual harassment, fostering a hostile work environment, and attempting to destroy her reputation with a social media smear campaign. The suit claimed that Baldoni engaged in "outrageous and unreasonable" behavior and sought $8 million in damages and fees. The allegations were vehemently denied by Baldoni, who subsequently filed a defamation suit against Lively, which was ultimately dismissed by a judge.

Lively's lawyers, Esra Hudson and Michael Gottlieb, hailed the ruling as a significant victory, stating that it demonstrates the consequences of bringing retaliatory lawsuits. They emphasized that the case was never about money but rather about accountability. In a statement, they said, "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." 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."

Baldoni's lawyer, Bryan Freedman, responded to the ruling, saying, "Today's ruling speaks for itself." He noted that Judge Liman had clearly considered the $8 million plus demand and rejected it, instead awarding a fraction of that amount in legal fees and costs. Freedman stated, "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."

The outcome of this case has far-reaching implications for the entertainment industry. As Lively's lawyers pointed out, the ruling exposes the existence of an "industry of secret online smear campaigns that largely target women." This result sends a clear message that there will be real consequences for those who bring retaliatory lawsuits to intimidate and silence survivors.

In a separate statement, Lively's lawyers highlighted the significance of this ruling, saying, "By agreeing to this settlement, and waiving their right to appeal, Justin Baldoni and every individual defendant now face personal liability for abusing the legal system to silence and intimidate Ms. Lively. And by admitting that Ms. Lively’s concerns ‘deserved to be heard,’ the defendants have ended once and for all the fiction that Ms. Lively ‘fabricated’ claims of sexual harassment and retaliation."

This development follows Baldoni's previous statements regarding his relationship with Lively and the trauma he experienced during the dispute. In a July video shared via Instagram, he reflected on the healing process, stating, "We are healing, and if you've ever been through something traumatic, you know that healing isn't linear. It looks different every day, and we have had to rethink for ourselves what is real and what matters." He expressed gratitude to fans and supporters, acknowledging that many individuals had given their time and energy to fight for them.

Lively's determination to expose and hold accountable those responsible for using smear campaigns and retaliatory lawsuits to silence survivors remains unwavering. Her mission continues, as she pushes forward with a renewed sense of purpose and dedication to her cause.

In conclusion, while this partial grant of Lively's request may not fully address the original damages sought, it represents a significant victory for her and serves as a landmark moment in the ongoing battle against retaliatory lawsuits. The impact of this ruling extends beyond the confines of the courtroom, sending a powerful message to those who seek to exploit the justice system for personal gain.