Justin Baldoni's Lawyer Blasts Blake Lively, Claims Her Continued Legal Demands Aren't 'Accurate'

Blake Lively's attempt to keep open the door to future damages against Justin Baldoni has been dismissed as 'not accurate' by his lawyer, who urged both sides in the long‑running legal battle in New York on Friday 12 June to 'move on'.

For context, Blake Lively, 38, settled her sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit against Justin Baldoni's production company, Wayfarer Studios, in May. The case, filed in December 2024, centred on her time working with the It Ends With Us director and co‑star, 42, and became one of the more high‑profile clashes to leak out of Hollywood in the past year. As part of that settlement, a judge later ordered Baldoni to cover Lively's legal fees for defending a countersuit he had brought against her, but stopped short of granting her any damages.

On Friday, US District Judge Lewis J. Liman in New York ordered Baldoni to pay Lively's attorneys' fees related to that dismissed countersuit, according to filings cited by Deadline. At the same time, he rejected her bid for damages, a decision that might have looked like the closing chapter. Instead, it opened up a fresh round of legal and PR sparring over what, exactly, the settlement still allows.

Blake Lively's Team Says Damages Bid Isn't Over

Lively's lawyers have argued the judge's language leaves room for further action. They told Deadline that, in his ruling, Judge Liman 'explained that a prevailing defendant under Section 47.1 may seek damages using different procedural mechanisms' and that the settlement agreement 'preserves Ms. Lively's rights to obtain those damages.'

In plain English, her camp is saying this is not the end of the road. She may have used, in the judge's phrase, the 'wrong procedural vehicle' this time round, but she might still be able to drive down a different legal route later.

The detail here matters. According to the settlement agreement obtained by Star, both sides agreed not to appeal Judge Liman's decision on the specific motion Lively had already filed. In his written ruling, the judge said she had chosen that 'wrong procedural vehicle' to go after damages. Crucially, though, the agreement does not explicitly state whether Lively is barred from trying again through another mechanism.

That gap is what her lawyers are now treating as an opening. It is also exactly what Baldoni's side is trying to slam shut.

Justin Baldoni's Lawyer Says Blake Lively Should 'Move On'

Speaking on The Megyn Kelly Show on Friday 12 June, Baldoni's lawyer Bryan Freedman flatly rejected the idea that Blake Lively retains a live claim for damages.

'We don't believe that's accurate at all,' he said, directly addressing Lively's legal team's reading of Judge Liman's order. Freedman argued that under the settlement, it was up to the judge to decide what, if anything, Lively should receive on that motion, and that Liman had already had his say.

'The settlement agreement gave Judge Liman the right to do what he felt was appropriate,' Freedman told Kelly. 'If he felt it was appropriate to award damages then he would have done so.'

Pressed on where that leaves the dispute, Freedman suggested it was time for everyone to step away from the courtroom and the microphones alike.

'I'm hoping it's finally over with respect to allowing Blake to move on, allowing Justin and the other parties to move on,' he said. He acknowledged there were still 'some collateral matters' that needed to be wrapped up, but added: 'Hopefully people will wish the best for each other and come to that place that says, 'You know what, enough is enough, we can agree to disagree.''

It is hard to miss the subtext: Baldoni's team wants this whole thing off the front pages, while Lively's camp is signalling that, at least technically, it might not be over.

A Hollywood Dispute That Refuses To Quiet Down

For starters, this was never just a quiet contractual spat. Lively's original lawsuit in December 2024 accused Baldoni and others at Wayfarer Studios of sexual harassment and retaliation tied to her work on the film adaptation of Colleen Hoover's bestseller It Ends With Us. Those allegations, and Baldoni's now‑dismissed countersuit, fused employment law with celebrity gossip in a way that guaranteed headlines.

By the time the parties reached a settlement in May, it looked as if both sides had decided continued public mudslinging was bad for business. Lively remains one of Hollywood's most bankable stars, Baldoni a director and actor trying to grow his profile behind the camera. Any studio considering future projects with either will have been watching this mess quite closely.

The latest flare‑up, then, feels slightly mad. Over a technical reading of Section 47.1 and a line or two in a settlement, the dispute has shifted into a new phase: not whether Lively was wronged, but whether she has any financial claim left on the table.

Legal observers might note that both interpretations can exist in tension. Judges routinely flag when parties have chosen an improper procedural mechanism while leaving other avenues conceptually intact. But settlement agreements, especially ones forged after months of bitter accusations, are meant to close as many doors as possible. Here, at least one door was left ajar, or at least looks that way from the outside.

Whether Lively actually pursues another damages claim is another question altogether. There is a difference between saying you could and deciding you should, particularly when every move is parsed online and on air. Baldoni's camp clearly hopes the appetite for more litigation is fading.

Freedman's closing plea on Megyn Kelly's show, that both Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni be 'allowed' to move on, sounded less like routine legal boilerplate and more like a weary recognition that the court of public opinion has its own statute of limitations. Viewers, and potential ticket‑buyers for whatever each does next, can only absorb so much of this stuff before tuning out.