Favorite quotes from the brief filed by Blake Lively seeking attorneys' fees
I am laughing so hard at this nonsense that I cannot help myself. Here are some of my favorite quotes:
Our maleficent Queen Blake Lively begins this round of theatrics by introducing Steve Sarowitz, the billionaire financier.
>He would use his vast personal fortune to destroy Lively and her husband, comparing his plan to a holy war."
Starting an attorney's fee motion with what reads like the trailer narration for a B-grade drama series is certainly a choice. I would think that most fee motions would begin with prevailing standards, not billionaires, holy wars, and destruction.
Miss Lively, would you mind answering who is funding your costs?
>filing a frivolous, baseless, and retaliatory $400 million defamation lawsuit designed to sue Lively 'into oblivion.'"
Well, Miss Lively, this is actually called defending oneself from commissioned hit pieces from the NYT. If Wayfarer had preferred to wage its battles through anonymous sources, coordinated media leaks, and sympathetic newspaper features instead of filing a lawsuit, in other words, if they had decided to stoop to your level, you would not be here seeking PR headlines in a fee motion.
>This gross abuse of the legal system was not meant to win in court—its aim was to retaliate against Lively by falsely branding her a liar, intimidating witnesses and the media, and discouraging others from speaking out.
Translation: They dared to disagree with me... in court.
In other news, Lawsuits are no longer meant to be filed by people who think they've been wronged. They are now only permitted with prior approval from Blake Lively. Otherwise, it is a "gross abuse" of the legal system.
>The Wayfarer Parties employed scorched-earth litigation 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.
At this point, we are reading an autobiography. Miss Lively, a citation is needed. Please check the nearest mirror.
Expected Notice of Error: The party names may have been interchanged during drafting.
>The Wayfarer Parties chose to bring this retaliatory action in this Court under California law, despite California Civil Code Section 47.1’s robust fee- and cost-shifting provisions and readily available public information regarding the rates charged by the law firms they knew would defend Lively.
They could have ended it (and offered to reimburse Lively) at any time. Having refused to do so, they should be ordered to reimburse Lively for all of the costs, attorneys’ fees, and expenses they improperly forced her to incur.
This may be my favorite paragraph in the entire motion. Let me see if I've understood the argument correctly. Wayfarer should have looked up Blake Lively's lawyers' hourly rates, realized they were astronomical, and immediately surrendered. This is a fascinating new legal theory: "You knew our lawyers were expensive; therefore, you should never have defended yourself."
"They could have ended it at any time." Of course they could have. Every defendant in every lawsuit can "end it" by capitulating. The suggestion that Wayfarer should have voluntarily reimbursed Blake Lively's legal fees before any court ordered them to do so is so breathtakingly entitled that we should now expect them to request interest for the inconvenience of having to wait.
Apparently, Wayfarer committed the unforgivable sin of refusing to finance Blake Lively's litigation team voluntarily. The audacity of expecting a court to decide first.
From Esra's declaration:
>"Hollywood's Top 100 Most Powerful Lawyers... Legal Impact Report... America's Top Lawyers... Top 100 Lawyers... The Best Lawyers in America..."
I am laughing hard. At this point, we should be expecting "Academy Award nominee for Best Supporting Litigator."
>"Fees...were discounted for an effective rate ranging from $1,161 to $1,287..."
Oh, thank goodness, from Costco subpoena to Costco discounts. They are only seeking eight figures after all. Wholesale rate.
>Manatt currently estimates work performed for June in connection with the 47.1 motion and the instant motion to be more than $100,000.
It takes six figures to ask for eight figures. Inflation has truly gotten out of hand.
>On March 20, 2025, Ms. Lively filed her motion to dismiss, which, as part of that motion, sought relief pursuant to Section 47.1. See Dkt. No. 144. The motion was complex, and was particularly complicated by a number of factors including, among other things: (1) the group pleading nature of the allegations, (2) the inclusion of the lengthy “timeline” in Exhibit A, (3) the attempt to hold Ms. Lively liable under various agency theories for the alleged statements of her spouse, Ryan Reynolds, and her publicist Leslie Sloane, (4) the jurisdictional and choice of law issues, and (5) the application of Section 47.1, which presented a novel privilege for which Ms. Lively articulated a standard for the first time in federal court.
Oh, you did? Fascinating. And yet, despite decades of experience, leadership of a premier employment practice, and billing more than $1,400 an hour, your side still managed to watch ten claims get dismissed (something us plebians predicted for free), two claims quietly withdrawn, and three more voluntarily dismissed by your own client.
>Ms. Lively has paid, and continues to pay, Manatt’s invoices.
Thank goodness that mystery is solved. Sure, Jan, sorry, Miss Lively.
Okay, I can go on. But I need to get back to work. Unfortunately, unlike certain Hollywood litigators, I actually have work to do, and I don't get paid $1500/h. Also, I need to understand the Apportionment argument.
Sorry, I forgot to add: I gotta go....IYKYK.