Petition for Recovery of Legal Expenditures in Lively v. Baldoni
Lively 訴 Baldoni 案申請追回法律支出
Introduction
Blake Lively has submitted a formal request to the court for the reimbursement of approximately US$8 million in legal fees and costs following a settlement with Justin Baldoni and Wayfarer Studios.
在與 Justin Baldoni 和 Wayfarer Studios 達成和解後，Blake Lively 已正式向法院申請追回約 800 萬美元的法律費用與開支。
Main Body
The current motion originates from a protracted legal dispute that commenced in December 2024, when Ms. Lively alleged sexual harassment and retaliation by Mr. Baldoni and Wayfarer Studios during the production of the film 'It Ends With Us'. In January 2025, Mr. Baldoni initiated a $400 million countersuit alleging defamation, civil extortion, and invasion of privacy against Ms. Lively and Ryan Reynolds. This countersuit was subsequently dismissed in June 2025, as the court determined that Ms. Lively's allegations were legally protected under California law.
目前的聲請源於一場冗長的法律糾紛，該爭議始於 2024 年 12 月，當時 Lively 指控 Baldoni 與 Wayfarer Studios 在電影《It Ends With Us》製作期間對其進行性騷擾與報復。2025 年 1 月，Baldoni 發起了一項 4 億美元的反訴，指控 Lively 與 Ryan Reynolds 誹謗、民事勒索及侵犯隱私。該反訴隨後於 2025 年 6 月被法院駁回，因為法院認定 Lively 的指控在加州法律下受到法律保護。
While a settlement was reached in May 2026, the financial terms remained undisclosed, and Ms. Lively received no direct monetary compensation. However, U.S. District Judge Lewis J. Liman ruled that Ms. Lively is entitled to recover specific legal costs associated with the defense against the dismissed countersuit, citing California Civil Code Section 47.1. Consequently, Ms. Lively's legal representatives have filed a detailed accounting of $7,495,526.87 in attorney fees and $539,514.01 in additional expenses. These costs are distributed between the firms Willkie Farr & Gallagher and Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP.
儘管雙方在 2026 年 5 月達成和解，但財務條款未予公開，且 Lively 未收到任何直接的金錢補償。然而，美國地區法官 Lewis J. Liman 引用加州民法第 47.1 條，裁定 Lively 有權追回與辯護該項被駁回反訴相關的特定法律費用。因此，Lively 的法律代表提交了一份詳細的帳單，其中包括 7,495,526.87 美元的律師費以及 539,514.01 美元的額外支出。這些費用分布於 Willkie Farr & Gallagher 與 Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP 兩家律師事務所。
Legal counsel for Ms. Lively characterized the defendants' litigation strategy as a 'scorched-earth' approach intended to deplete her financial resources and intimidate witnesses. Conversely, representatives for Mr. Baldoni have argued that the current motion constitutes an attempt to circumvent the terms of the prior settlement. The defense maintains that the settlement resolved the matter without the defendants paying any of the $300 million in damages previously sought by Ms. Lively.
Lively 的法律顧問將被告的訴訟策略形容為「焦土政策」，旨在耗盡其財務資源並恐嚇證人。相反地，Baldoni 的代表則主張，目前的聲請企圖規避先前和解協議的條款。辯方堅稱，該和解已解決此事，且被告並未支付 Lively 此前尋求的 3 億美元損害賠償金。
Conclusion
The court is currently reviewing the requested reimbursement amount, with a response from Mr. Baldoni and Wayfarer Studios due by July 13.
法院目前正在審核申請追回的金額，Baldoni 與 Wayfarer Studios 須於 7 月 13 日前做出回應。
Vocabulary Learning
The Architecture of Adversarial Precision
To transition from B2 (competency) to C2 (mastery), a student must move beyond describing events and begin manipulating nuance. In this text, the most potent linguistic phenomenon is the Strategic Deployment of Legal Nominalization—the process of turning complex actions into static nouns to create an aura of objective, indisputable fact.
⚖️ The Nominalization Pivot
Observe the phrase: "The current motion originates from a protracted legal dispute..."
At B2, a student might write: "They have been arguing in court for a long time." At C2, we transform the action (arguing) into a conceptual entity (a protracted legal dispute). This shift achieves three things:
- Density: It packs chronological and emotional weight into a single noun phrase.
- Distance: It removes the 'human' element, mirroring the clinical detachment of high-level jurisprudence.
- Authority: It establishes a formal register where the 'dispute' becomes the subject of the sentence, rather than the people involved.
🔍 Semantic Precision: The 'C2 Lexical Tier'
Note the specific choice of adjectives and verbs that elevate the text from 'reportage' to 'expert discourse':
- "Protracted" Not just 'long', but unnecessarily or exhaustingly extended.
- "Circumvent" Not just 'avoid', but to find a clever, often illicit, way around a rule.
- "Scorched-earth" A metaphorical loan from military strategy, signifying total destruction regardless of the cost. This is a hallmarks of C2: the ability to use idiomatic metaphors within a formal framework.
🛠️ Syntactic Sophistication: The Passive/Active Dialectic
Look at the transition between "Mr. Baldoni initiated a $400 million countersuit" (Active: assigning blame/action) and "This countersuit was subsequently dismissed" (Passive: focusing on the legal outcome).
C2 Mastery Tip: Use the active voice to highlight agency and the passive voice to emphasize the state of affairs or systemic results. The author switches these flawlessly to shift the reader's focus from the actor to the legal status of the case.