The joint statement this week that announced a settlement in the long-running legal brawl between Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni had an air of finality. Both parties declared they had “reached an agreement to resolve the matters” shortly before trial.
But a notice of settlement filed in the federal court case in Manhattan on Thursday indicates that the dispute over the ill-fated 2023 production of “It Ends With Us” is far from fully resolved.
The notice, filed by both parties, details an exception to the settlement that allows Ms. Lively to continue to seek legal fees and other damages from Mr. Baldoni and his associates in a related legal matter.
“The parties have fully and finally resolved all claims in the consolidated action, except one,” Ms. Lively’s lawyers wrote in a separate letter filed with the court on Thursday.
Such a bid could, theoretically, put millions of dollars on the line and unleash weeks more of legal sparring as Mr. Baldoni fights the effort in court. His lawyers have already argued that such monetary penalties would be unwarranted and “draconian.”
The terms of the settlement, which would end Ms. Lively’s retaliation suit against Mr. Baldoni’s production company and others, have largely been kept confidential.
But the notice indicates that she is now asking the court to award her damages for what her lawyers have described as the retaliatory nature of a separate defamation lawsuit that Mr. Baldoni had filed against her and was dismissed by a judge. The filing notes that both sides have waived their right to appeal the judge’s decision.
Ms. Lively’s motion seeks to make use of a relatively untested California law that was passed in 2023 in response to the #MeToo movement. Aimed at protecting sexual misconduct accusers from retaliatory defamation lawsuits, the law opens the door to significant monetary damages if the person prevails in court.
Mr. Baldoni and his associates filed the defamation suit against her last year, shortly after she accused him of waging an online retaliation campaign after she aired sexual harassment complaints that stemmed from the set of “It Ends With Us.”
Describing Ms. Lively’s allegations as false and malicious, Mr. Baldoni’s suit argued that they had been contrived by the actress in an effort to seize control of the movie. Other plaintiffs in the suit included Wayfarer Studios, Mr. Baldoni’s production company; Jamey Heath, the company’s chief executive; and Melissa Nathan, a crisis public relations specialist who has denied that her company mobilized a smear campaign against Ms. Lively.
A judge dismissed all of the claims brought in the suit last year, saying that Ms. Lively’s accusations were protected from defamation claims because they were made in a legal filing. The judge also dismissed a defamation case against The New York Times, which published an article in 2024 about the contents of that filing.
Since then, Ms. Lively has renewed an effort to collect money from the plaintiffs of what she has described as a baseless and retaliatory suit.
Her lawyers wrote in court papers last year that Mr. Baldoni and his associates had brought claims that were “not based on factual or legal merit, but instead a deliberate plan to discredit Ms. Lively and to harm her and her husband by suing them into ‘oblivion.’”
To be awarded damages under the California law, the accuser must have had a reasonable basis to have made the sexual assault or harassment complaint, and to have made it “without malice.”
Lawyers for Mr. Baldoni and his associates have argued that they had every right to try to seek redress for what they called a malicious “coordinated campaign” by Ms. Lively. They have accused her of twisting benign interactions on the movie set — such as Mr. Baldoni discussing sex during the production of a romantic movie — into claims of sexual harassment.
“In essence, Lively asks the court to find that she is immune from any culpability for her wrongful acts,” Mr. Baldoni’s lawyers wrote in a filing last year, “and instead it is the Wayfarer parties who must be punished for daring to exercise their constitutional right to seek a remedy from the court for her lies.”
The California law is so new that few, if any, prior cases have established a road map for how the judge overseeing the federal case should proceed. Ms. Lively’s lawyers asked the court to allow them to submit a proposal for the procedure moving forward.
The issues that remain a subject of debate arose a few years ago as Ms. Lively and Mr. Baldoni began filming “It Ends With Us.” The movie, which focuses on the ravages of domestic violence, featured Ms. Lively and Mr. Baldoni as co-stars, with Mr. Baldoni directing.
Ms. Lively has claimed the set was rife with sexual harassment, including Mr. Baldoni telling her on set that she looked “pretty hot” and Mr. Heath staring at her through a mirror when she was undressed in her trailer. Lawyers for the men have said that the behavior amounted to nothing more than awkward interactions and miscommunications.
Judge Lewis J. Liman, who is overseeing the case, dismissed Ms. Lively’s claims of sexual harassment after classifying her as an independent contractor, with more power than a subordinate employee.
In a 152-page opinion, he took a mixed view of Ms. Lively’s harassment allegations, viewing some as more persuasive than others. But he noted there was evidence to indicate that she had believed she had been harassed, citing a message Ms. Lively sent to a friend during the first week of filming in which she said “today I came home and cried,” adding, “They’re just being creeps.”
The trial would have focused on what Ms. Lively has described as retaliatory efforts by Mr. Baldoni, his company and his associates to impugn her reputation through the internet and tabloid media.
The settlement averted a contentious trial that would have explored questions around social media manipulation, celebrity reputations and the standard practices of public relations professionals in the entertainment industry.
Mr. Baldoni’s lawyers contend their client hired crisis management professionals to help protect his reputation. At the time, they have said, Ms. Lively’s efforts to publicly distance herself from him ahead of the movie’s premiere was driving gossip and speculation online.
The jury would have been asked to consider whether the ensuing surge of negative commentary online about Ms. Lively was organic or driven by the efforts of Mr. Baldoni’s company and its associates.
Ms. Lively’s suit, which until the settlement had been headed to trial this month, had initially named a host of defendants, including Mr. Baldoni. But the judge dismissed the individual defendants, narrowing the case to focus on Wayfarer and two other companies.
The matter that Ms. Lively is continuing to pursue currently involves both companies and individuals such as Mr. Baldoni.
In the absence of any detailed accounting of the settlement agreement, observers online and elsewhere have searched for any clues as to its terms and who came out more favorably. When Ms. Lively showed up at the Met Gala on Monday night, just hours after a settlement was announced, there was talk of her appearance as a “victory lap.” Others searched her body language and spotted signs of tension or defeat.
Both sides have sought to position themselves publicly as having come out on top.
As part of a press tour this week, Bryan Freedman, a lawyer for Mr. Baldoni, said that his client was “ecstatic” about the result of the case. On Thursday, Esra Hudson and Michael Gottlieb, lawyers for Ms. Lively, said in a statement that the resolution was a “resounding victory” for the actress.
