u/Jumpy-Contest7860

Have fun and stay safe ❤️

According to the Federal Judicial Center website, "The D.C., First, Second, Seventh, and Tenth Circuits require contemporaneous fee records, and may substantially reduce or even deny a fee award in their absence."

Crucially for this case, the Second Circuit has determined that computer reconstructions of contemporaneous records, typewritten transcriptions of original entries, or typed listings of hours printed from computer records are fully adequate to satisfy the rule—provided they are based on entries made contemporaneously as the work was completed.

This is exactly what Lively’s legal team did. In her sworn declaration, attorney fee expert Diana Kantner states that she reviewed and analyzed the invoice spreadsheets provided to her by counsel, which perfectly reflect the same information in the monthly invoices prepared for Ms. Lively.

Procedurally, this is all that is required to file a fee motion. The actual raw, redacted invoices do not need to be produced upfront unless the fees are formally disputed or requested by the judge.

So why would Lively hire a third-party fee expert to do this?

It’s a classic "damned if you do, damned if you don't" strategic scenario, but hiring an outside expert is a total no-brainer:

1. Insulating the Trial Team: If Lively's own legal counsel had done these calculations and carved up the mixed billing themselves, the Wayfarer parties would immediately claim the breakdown was biased and self-serving. They would scream: "The people who stand to profit from this $7.5 million award are the exact same people who subjectively decided which hours were recoverable. They are financially incentivised to pad the numbers, and they cannot be trusted."
2. Protecting Professional Integrity: Doing it internally forces Lively’s legal counsel to defend their own personal integrity before the Judge, which is an incredibly uncomfortable and risky position for a trial lawyer to be in.

An outside expert provides a layer of professional objectivity that carries significantly more weight with the Court. The Wayfarer camp is having a meltdown and will undoubtedly attack how the data was filtered, but Lively’s counsel can simply point to Diana Kantner's independent credentials and let her data speak for itself.

Blake's incredible legal team!

Esra Hudson declaration: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1445.0.pdf

Michael Gottlieb declaration: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1447.0.pdf

Peer firm data: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1447.2.pdf

Stephanie Roeser: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1445.2.pdf

Matthew F. Bruno: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1445.3.pdf

Sarah E. Moses: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1445.4.pdf

Katelyn Climaco: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1445.5.pdf

Diana Kantner is a Vice President at KCIC, a consulting firm specializing in dispute resolution support, litigation consulting, and expert testimony. She has more than 20 years of professional experience handling complex insurance claims, economic and financial analyses, damage quantification, and allocation modeling. Prior to joining KCIC, she spent over a decade as a managing director at The Claro Group and served as a director of financial management for Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine.

Diana's declaration: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1448.0_1.pdf

Diana's C.V: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1448.1_1.pdf

Diana Kantner was hired to examine and analyse the billings of the two law firms hired by Lively, Manatt, Phelps, and Phillips LLP and Wilkie, Farr, and Gallagher LLP.

Summary of fees and costs: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69510553/1448/2/lively-v-wayfarer-studios-llc/

Look at April 5th, 2025, Melissa Taustine billed $15,555.00 for 12.2 hours in a single day for researching and drafting the Rule 11 sanctions for the Wayfarer Parties.

Introduction.

Esra points out that Wayfarer's lawsuit was a "gross misuse of the legal system," that it was never meant to win in court. It's purpose was to retaliate against Blake by falsely branding her a liar, intimidating witnesses and media and discouraging others from speaking out. She states the Wayfarer Parties have since admitted Blake's claims were "protected activity" that deserved "to be heard." Esra did not hold back, "The Wayfarer Parties employed scorched earth tactics designed to drain Lively's resources, including a near daily press campaign promoting their sham lawsuit, propounding expansive and irrelevant discovery demands, obstructing discovery directed at them and affiliated third parties, and forcing Lively to seek frequent relief from the court to reign in their abusive docket filings." YIKES!

Relevant Background.

Esra lays it all out here, that Wayfarer's lawsuit was nothing more than a malicious, multi-million dollar PR stunt rather than a lawsuit.

She calls Wayfarer's complaint filed on January 16th 2024 an "unhinged rant," filled with no conceivable legal purpose other than to falsely brand her a liar.

The Smear Campaign Website, was to sensationalise the case and destroy her image. She points to the unsealed signal messages where the Wayfarer Party was gloating about the website launch.

The court consolidated Wayfarer's suit and Lively's affirmative lawsuit into a single action due to the common legal issues. Lively filed 15 motions to compel during the discovery process, as she was met with "extreme resistance" at every turn.

Wayfarer failed to produce necessary files, improperly hid behind attorney-client privilege, and straight up destroyed relevant evidence (resulting in a motion for spoliation sanctions).

Wayfarer used the public docket to smear Blake and her attorney's, drawing a warning from the court "that future misuse may be met with sanctions."

The Wayfarer Parties lawsuit was dismissed in it's entirety by the court in June 2025, slamming it for a severe "lack of clarity," and relying on "dramatised allegations."

Because the claims were so egregiously baseless, Blake served the Wayfarer team with Rule 11 Safe Harbor letters, demanding they withdraw them. When they refused to defend the merits of their claims, the court granted Blake's Rule 11 motion on the 27th March, 2026. Judge Liman concluded their was "no conceivable basis" for five of the seven claims and formally reprimanded Wayfarer's "high priced" lawyers for pushing claims that were "legally frivolous and factually baseless." This will forever be my favourite quote!!

Argument

1. Blake is seeking $8,035,040.88 in fees and costs for her successful litigation defense. This figure represents the expenses incurred and work performed by Blake's counsel to that end, specifically, the fees and costs related to (i) motion practice associated with Wayfarer's lawsuit including, but not limited to, the prevailing MTD, Rule 11 motion, and motions to compel; (ii) work performed associated with the consolidated action as a whole, including discovery through deadline for the Wayfarer Parties to amend their pleading that was relevant to both actions; and (iii) Lively's 47.1 motion, including this application.

2. Based on the provided legal documents, the excerpt argues that under California Civil Code Section 47.1, the apportionment of defense costs by individual claim is not permitted because the statute applies broadly to the successful defense of "the litigation" as a whole. Because Lively successfully secured the dismissal with prejudice of all claims brought against her in the Wayfarer Action, she is entitled to full recovery of her attorney's fees and costs, including those incurred while preparing the fee motion. Furthermore, because the legal work between her defense in the Wayfarer Action and her prosecution of the Lively Action is "inextricably intertwined," no apportionment is legally required. Ultimately, counsel for Lively assert that the requested attorney's fees totaling $7,495,526.87 are reasonable under the "lodestar method" applied by California courts.

Esra argues that the requested attorney's fees are entirely justified based on the reasonableness of both the hourly rates and the hours billed. First, it asserts that the hourly rates are standard for the market and aligned with the counsel's specialised experience; the fact that Lively actually paid these fees serves as strong judicial evidence of their reasonableness. Second, they maintain that courts should defer to the professional judgment of the winning lawyers regarding hours expended, especially given the novel, high-quality, and complex nature of the Employment and First Amendment issues that required hiring two specialised law firms. Finally, the requested total of $7,495,526.87 is presented as an eminently reasonable amount because Lively achieved a complete victory, the recently enacted Section 47.1 required extensive research with little prior precedent, and the defense faced aggressive discovery without a stay alongside the litigation of Rule 12 motions.

Conclusion

Lively respectfully requests the court award her reasonable attorney's fees of $7,495,526.87 and costs in the amount of $539,526.01.

Brief: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1446.0.pdf

Exhibit 7: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1445.7.pdf

Exhibit 6: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.1445.6.pdf

There are more filings but they are not available yet.

Monday's filing is likely to be one of the most significant remaining public filing's in the litigation because it will put an actual dollar amount on the fee award the court has already determined Blake is entitled to recover. The only real question left is how much.

What we can expect to see:

Blake's attorneys will likely ask for a specific amount, which will be broken down into attorney's fees, litigation costs, and potentially fees on fees (time spent litigating the motion itself), if they contend those are recoverable under California Law.

Detailed billing records

I expect some information to be redacted to preserve attorney-client privilege and work product but to support the request they will likely need, attorney declarations, billing summaries, hourly rates, hours worked, and expense records.

An argument about the scope of recoverable fees

Judge Liman specifically noted that the parties would need to address apportionment, in other words, which legal work was performed defending the dismissed defamation claims versus work on claims that are not fee shifting. He indicated that fees on common issues may be recoverable where the work cannot be reasonably separated.

Blake's team will likely argue that much of the discovery overlapped, many motions addressed multiple claims simultaneously, separating every billing entry would be artificial, and California fee shifting allows recovery for intertwined work.

I am not a lawyer so i couldn't possibly guess how much it will be, but i am confident its going to be 7 figures and not $200,000 like many on the other side are claiming. I'm also wondering if Lively will ask for recovery through the date of settlement, or also seek fees incurred after settlement litigating the §47.1 issue itself.Judge Liman left room for further briefing on the proper measure of fees, so her memorandum may address whether those post-dismissal and post-settlement efforts are compensable under California's fee-shifting principles. That could have a meaningful impact on the final award.

She really suits glasses 😍

It’s only “crazy” til you do it!!

#JustDoIt

I am obsessed with these photos, especially the first one 😍

“No one I’ve ever known, is greater than this man.“ ❤️

I love the photo of her Mum and Dad, such a beautiful and personal memory ❤️

Happy belated Father's Day to all that celebrate it.

When the online discourse becomes an echo chamber, treating the digital world as if it "has an asterisk" is probably the healthiest boundary Ryan and Blake could have set. ❤️

Credit to: the.bodyguards.hitman.cat for the photos.

Consent isn't about legal technicalities or social media rules, it is about basic human respect, integrity, and ongoing autonomy. Silence and secrets are exactly where predatory behavior thrives, which is why breaking that silence and demanding absolute accountability matters. Watch it, sit with it, and remember: if it isn't an enthusiastic, informed, and voluntary yes, it is a no.

NO MEANS NO!

Sad but true!

Both parties will submit a memorandum no more than 10 double pages, laying out the legal principles they think the court should consider. Lively shall include declarations and proof sufficient to support her application for fees and costs.

Wayfarer have til July 13th to respond.

Since the 47.1 ruling, the main focus has been on the money and the fact that Judge Liman denied damages for Blake. I would be lying if i said i wasn't disappointed about that, I think millions of dollars is the least Blake deserved but i have never felt this lawsuit was about money, not for her. I know Pro-Baldoni view this as a win for him, but i don't think they are thinking about the deeper implications of this ruling and what it could mean for their business in the future.

The Public Record.

The Section 47.1 opinion and order isn't just a piece of paper, it is a publicly filed Federal Court ruling. It is a permanent matter of public record. Anyone conducting standard corporate due diligence on Wayfarer, its principals, or related corporate entities can pull it up and read it, just as easily as they can review Judge Liman's prior dismissal rulings.

When future business partners, investors, insurers, or distributors do their background checks, they won't just see a studio that wrapped up a standard contract dispute. They are going to see a complete litigation history: the absolute dismissal of Wayfarer's multi-million dollar claims, the aggressive tactics used during the lawsuit, the potential Rule 11 evaluations, and a federal judge's exact reasoning for penalising them. All of it is unerasable, and all of it will be examined.

Insurance Implications

Currently, Harco National Insurance are seeking a court order stating it has no obligation to defend or indemnify Wayfarer. Wayfarer are also suing 3 other insurance companies (QBE, New York Marine, and Lloyd's underwriters) in California for breach of contract and bad faith denial.

Potential insurers for future productions will look at prior litigation history, the frequency of claims, adverse court rulings, exposure to future litigation, and attorney's fee awards. Because of this track record, Wayfarer can reasonably expect massive premium hikes, higher deductibles, or flat out refusals to cover their future projects.

7 Lawsuits in 7 years

Seven lawsuits in seven years is an exceptionally high rate of litigation for a small, independent studio. With everything we have seen on the docket with how Justin, Jamey and Steve conduct day to day business, basic operational questions naturally emerge: Who would want to work with them? Who would work for them? Who would risk capital to invest in them? Their failure to follow SAG guidelines, lying about being exempt from the strikes, being less than forthcoming with their insurance companies, a documented failure to thoroughly investigate safety and workplace concerns on set, crossing boundaries, not respecting boundaries, a fundamental lack of understanding regarding consent and intimacy, failure to adhere to standard industry safety protocols, and operating a production environment with a total lack of structured HR protocols.

There is undoubtedly plenty more buried in the docket that I have missed. All of this to say: it is clear this company’s operational framework is profoundly compromised. Anyone even contemplating signing a contract or aligning their brand with this entity in the future should review the public record before agreeing to a single thing.

I watched this game at the same time as watching Scotland play their opening game in the World Cup! A great day for both 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🧡💙

Read Lively’s full statement below: 

Blake Lively won her motion under Civil Code Section 47.1. Today’s ruling makes it clear that Ms. Lively brought her claims in good faith, that there was no evidence she acted with malice, and that she is the prevailing defendant under Section 47.1. The Court is awarding Ms. Lively attorneys’ fees and costs and has explained that a prevailing defendant under Section 47.1 may seek damages using different procedural mechanisms. The parties’ settlement agreement expressly preserves Ms. Lively’s rights to obtain those damages. Ms. Lively is gratified that her lawsuit shows how Section 47.1 and laws like it create a path for survivors to hold accountable those who weaponize online attacks and retaliatory lawsuits to intimidate and silence survivors.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/blake-lively-legal-fees-justin-baldoni-court-orders-1236620370/