Camille Vasquez, who was Johnny's attorney during the initial trial where he sued Amber for defamation, said that the team were always expecting Amber to appeal the jury's verdict.
WATCH: Amber Heard says she did not want divorce details to go public
"Mr. Depp ended up filing his own appeals so that the court could have the full record. And you know, she insists on continuing to litigate this matter. We have to protect our client's interest," she said on CBS Mornings in an interview with Gayle King.
"So is it safe to say that if she hadn't appealed you all would not have appealed either? You would have moved on?" asked Gayle to which Camille simply replied: "Yes."
Camilla also said that Johnny's legal team was young because the parties involved were young and "they resonate with a younger audience, and you need those perspectives".
"I think young people have a fresh perspective on these issues, the issues that we were discussing in this case - abuse, Me Too," she said.
Johnny and Amber's trial lasted six weeks
Johnny, 59, won all three defamation claims in his case against ex-wife Amber. Johnny's $50m defamation case against Amber stemmed from a 2018 op-ed article she wrote for The Washington Post in which she said she was a "public figure representing domestic abuse".
While the piece did not identify Johnny by name, his attorneys said it "incalculably" damaged his career, costing him acting roles. She then countersued him for $100m.
The jury found that Amber defamed Johnny in her accusations, saying that the Aquaman star acted with "actual malice" with her claims.
They awarded Johnny $10million in compensatory damages, with an additional $5million in punitive costs, totalling $15million overall.
The jury awarded Amber $2million after finding that Johnny had defamed her through his attorney.
Johnny won his defamation case against ex-wife Amber
Amber is calling for a mistrial over an alleged discrepancy between the ages of the two jurors; the documents claim the person initially selected was 77-years-old but shares the same last name and address as a 52-year-old.
The younger person served as the juror in the six-week trial.
"It is deeply troubling for an individual not summoned for jury duty nonetheless to appear for jury duty and serve on a jury, especially in a such as this," the filing reads, adding: "Where the fact and date of the jury trial were highly publicized prior to and after the issuance of the juror summonses."