Blake Lively Seeks Mini Trial for Damages

claims she's entitled to a mini trial for damages against - even though their case is settled.

The actress said that she wanted to call experts to quantify her losses from Baldoni’s failed $400 million defamation lawsuit against her in a hearing in federal court in Manhattan on Monday.

Her lawyers said that the sum she was seeking would be ‘very significant’ because of her reputational harm.

But Baldoni’s lawyers objected and said that it would amount to an ‘alternative trial’.

Even the judge at the court in New York appeared to be pleading with Lively to reconsider, telling her lawyers: ‘Your client does have the ability to end this’.

Lively wants her legal fees paid plus costs, along with triple damages and punitive damages on top.

During the hearing Lively’s lawyer Michael Gottlieb did not put an exact figure on the amount of damages they would be seeking.

However, they would need expert testimony to ‘quantify the reach of the allegation from the complaint [by Baldoni] that branded Miss Lively a liar’.

Gottlieb agreed when Judge Liman asked if that also included ‘lost job opportunities from the alleged spread of this and harm to reputation?’

Judge Liman appeared dubious to such evidence being presented to the court outside of a trial.

He said: ‘All of which without a jury?’

Gottlieb said that would be ‘entirely appropriate’.

Gottlieb insisted that the law did indeed allow Lively damages and it was triggered when Baldoni sued her.

Baldoni’s lawyer Ellyn Garofalo said there was ‘no evidence of any sort’ that Lively's was harmed by his defamation lawsuit.

She said that ‘reopening’ the case would amount to an ‘alternative trial’ which she suggested could take a long time to resolve.

At times during the hearing Judge Liman appeared to be grappling with how to interpret the law, which only had one or two precedents given how new it was.

Judge Liman told both sides he was not trying to come up with ‘something that’s convenient for you all’, instead he was trying to figure out a ‘statute that works’

Speaking after the hearing McCawley said Lively was determined to press on.

She said: ‘The damages [to Lively]are very significant.

‘When you look at the harm that was caused to her, that's what it's meant to compensate, along with the attorney's fees and costs, and then the statute mandatory provides for trouble. 

Lively and Baldoni have reportedly spent $60million on lawyers during their legal war, meaning the sum will likely be well into the millions. 

Lively had sought $160million in damages after she  after she spoke up against his alleged conduct on the set of the movie, which was released in August 2024.

In April a judge dismissed most of her case including all the sexual harassment allegations and weeks later both sides reached a settlement with no money changing hands.

The hearing on Monday will take place at the federal court in Manhattan and each side will have half an hour to make their argument.

Had the trial gone ahead, it would have taken place midway through what was expected to be a three-week case.

Neither Lively nor Baldoni is expected to be present.

The relatively untested law that Lively is relying on was passed in 2023 in California in response to the MeToo movement and was designed to stop defamation lawsuits against those who come forward with allegations of sexual impropriety.

Baldoni 

He sought $400million in damages for what he claimed were false allegations. The case was dismissed in November last year because Lively initially made her allegations to the California Civil Rights Department meaning they were protected by privilege.

In a legal filing Lively’s lawyer Michael Gottlieb said that the relevant law allowed ‘severe and mandatory penalties against any party who files unsuccessful retaliatory defamation actions against sexual harassment and retaliation complainants.'

So long as Lively made her comments ‘without malice’, or she genuinely believed them, she should have been allowed to share her experience without fear of being sued, Gottlieb wrote.

He wrote: ‘The California Legislature intended for (the law) to deter litigation that would otherwise force survivors to defend against a long and expensive retaliatory defamation lawsuit by imposing ‘significant remedies for successful defendants in defamation claims.'

Gottlieb called Baldoni’s lawsuit against Lively the ‘prototypical suit’ that the law in question was drawn up to prevent. 

‘Thus, as the prevailing defendant, Ms Lively is entitled not just to attorneys’ fees and costs, but also compensatory damages tripled, and punitive damages,’ he wrote.

Lively’s actions have sparked alarm among some First Amendment experts who said it could put people off going to court.

Dustin Pusch, a lawyer with expertise in First Amendment cases, told the New York Times: ‘If you’ve been falsely accused of something as serious as sexual assault, sexual harassment, and you actually feel you have a strong lawsuit, this law is going to make you think twice about taking this to court and trying to defend your reputation.'

Another unusual element of the hearing is that once the judge rules, neither side has the right to appeal.