Baldoni Wins as Lively Faces Court Setback

's legal team has declared victory over after a judge rejected her bid to seek potentially tens of millions of dollars in additional damages - claiming the decision proves there was 'no sexual harassment', 'no retaliation' and 'no smear campaign', at the heart of the actress's case.

In a blistering statement after Judge Lewis Liman's ruling on Friday, attorney Bryan Freedman said Lively once again has failed in her efforts to win damages from his clients after the collapse of the pair's sprawling legal battle over It Ends With Us.

'Throughout this process, innocent people had their reputations unfairly tarnished. There was no sexual harassment. There was no retaliation. There was no smear campaign,' he said. 

'The court recognized it, the record reflects it, and we have maintained it from the very beginning. We would not hesitate to stand up for the truth again.'

The comments come shortly after Judge Liman ruled that the actress could not seek treble and punitive damages from Baldoni under a law designed to protect people who come forward with allegations of sexual misconduct.

In a scathing 47-page ruling, he accused Lively, 38, of trying to make an 'end run' around the law and 'circumvent' what it was meant for.

Freedman in his statement pointed out that Lively had demanded more than $300 million in fees and damages, only to see most of her claims dismissed before ultimately settling the case without receiving a payout.

'Notwithstanding that all of her sexual harassment and defamation claims were thrown out by the court, Ms Lively then pivoted to exploit a California law that was established to protect real victims in what proved to be a fruitless mission to obtain damages. Once again, she failed,' Freedman added. 

'My clients got blindsided by a Pulitzer-prize winning journalist and was threatened by one of the most famous movie stars, who tried to rip away their life’s work and pristine reputations.' 

The reference to the journalist concerned a New York Times article that he said defamed him and had uncritically accepted Lively's version of events.

'Not only were we successful in exposing the truth of their actions, but by the consistent dissemination of facts and evidence, we made sure that justice prevailed,' Freedman continued. 

Had the judge ruled differently in Friday's hearing, Baldoni and his production company, Wayfarer Studios, could have been forced to pay tens of millions of dollars, beyond the costs associated with defending the case. 

Lively, however, did score one legal victory after Judge Liman ruled that she is entitled to costs associated with Baldoni's failed $400 million defamation lawsuit against her - which could run into the millions.

The ruling is a bitter blow to Lively, who continued the case against Baldoni even after both sides reached a settlement last month in New York.

She was seeking treble and punitive damages over his defamation case against her, which Baldoni filed in January last year and was dismissed five months later.

Then in April this year, Judge Liman also dismissed most of Lively's case, in which she was seeking $160 million in damages for lost income and damage to her reputation.

The law Lively invoked in her bid to recover damages from Baldoni is California Civil Code Section 47.1, a relatively untested piece of legislation that was passed in 2023 in California in response to the MeToo movement.

It was designed to shield people who come forward with allegations of sexual impropriety from retaliatory defamation lawsuits - with lawmakers believing that the threat of costly legal action could deter alleged victims from speaking out. 

But Judge Liman said that Lively's request 'circumvents processes designed for the orderly, just, and fair determination of civil claims in federal court'.

He said she was trying to mount a 'kind of malicious prosecution or abuse of process claim' against Baldoni and his film studio, which produced the movie, Wayfarer. 

Judge Liman objected to the idea of what would amount to a mini-trial taking place 'without the benefit' of briefings, as should normally happen.

He said that the law 'does not create an end run around the entire set of carefully crafted federal procedural rules designed to protect the rights of the parties.

'It instead establishes a narrow exception to the usual litigation process for a specific and limited kind of relief. Compensatory and punitive damages do not fall within that exception.'

Judge Liman said he was granting Lively's request for legal fees because it was 'on much firmer ground'.

But the judge said that he made no finding at this stage as to the 'appropriate measure of fees', or how much Lively will get for her legal costs.

Sources have told the Daily Mail that both sides have blown as much as $60 million on high-powered attorneys, but any fees will only cover the cost of defending Baldoni's failed lawsuit. 

A source close to Lively downplayed the ruling as 'procedural' and said it left open the door to seek damages by 'other means'.

That could even include an entirely new lawsuit to go after the money, the source said.

'Today was a procedural ruling. The court leaves the door open to seeking damages by other means like an independent lawsuit or a counterclaim, including in federal court,' the source said.

Another bright spot in the ruling for Lively was that the judge found no evidence of malice, a legal term which means making a false claim knowing that it was false.

The ruling effectively means that, according to Judge Liman, Lively really did believe what she was alleging.

The decision by Judge Liman could finally mark the beginning of the end of a case that was due to go to trial last month before both sides settled it

The case pitted Lively, the star of the Gossip Girl series, against Baldoni, who claimed to be a feminist, woke actor and director who became involved with It Ends With Us because of its message about domestic violence.

In the movie, Lively played florist Lily Bloom, who begins a relationship with Baldoni, who plays abusive neurosurgeon Ryle Kincaid.

But in the summer of 2024, when the movie came out, it became overshadowed by rumors of a feud on set between Baldoni and Lively.

Then in December that year, she filed a complaint with the California Civil Rights Department alleging she was harassed on set by Baldoni and others.

Among the claims was that Baldoni 'fat-shamed' her by asking her personal trainer about her weight: he claimed it was because he was worried about hurting his back during a scene where he lifted her up.