Blake Lively’s legal team is seeking to end Justin Baldoni’s push to access her private messages with Taylor Swift, escalating the Blake Lively legal battle over Taylor Swift texts at the center of a contentious Hollywood lawsuit. The ongoing dispute, rooted in Lively’s accusations of sexual harassment and retaliation during the “It Ends With Us” film’s production, has drawn widespread attention as Baldoni faces multiple legal defeats in federal court.
Lively Pushes Back Against Baldoni’s Attempt to Obtain Swift’s Messages
On June 13, Lively submitted a motion asking a federal judge to block Baldoni’s legal request for her communications with Swift regarding either the film or her sexual harassment case. Lively, known for her close friendship with the global pop superstar, argues that Baldoni, who served as co-star and director, is attempting to draw Swift into the court proceedings solely for media spectacle. She contends the requests do not serve legitimate discovery needs but rather seek to generate headlines tied to Taylor Swift’s celebrity status.
Background: Subpoenas and Media Firestorm Around Swift
Previously, Baldoni and his production company Wayfarer Studios issued subpoenas to Swift and her legal team, demanding all texts related to the lawsuit and “It Ends With Us.” Swift’s representatives forcefully pushed back, decrying the demands as “tabloid clickbait,” leading Baldoni to withdraw the subpoenas last month. However, questions remain about whether any of Swift’s communications changed hands as part of the withdrawal. According to court documents, Swift’s attorney told Lively’s camp that no materials had been provided, though a Daily Mail piece citing an “insider” suggested Wayfarer obtained “exactly what they were seeking.”
Lively’s attorneys note that the unnamed source quoted by the Daily Mail could be interpreted multiple ways. It is unclear if Swift actually supplied texts, or whether the media frenzy around the subpoenas achieved Baldoni’s goals without any evidence being turned over. They reference the reporter’s history with Baldoni’s publicists as a factor possibly shaping the narrative.
“Either interpretation of the reason the Wayfarer parties withdrew the subpoenas warrants the entry of a protective order,”
write Lively’s attorneys.
“If the Wayfarer parties received documents from Ms. Swift such that they have ‘exactly what they’ need, then the discovery sought … is cumulative and duplicative, and need not be produced again by Ms. Lively.”
—Lively’s attorneys
Lively’s Team Condemns Media Tactics and Raises Legal Arguments
Lively’s legal team maintains that dragging Swift further into the case is unwarranted and potentially abusive. Their motion argues that if the subpoenas were designed for publicity rather than legitimate fact-finding, there is no valid basis for the discovery. The filing stresses that the intent of civil discovery is to obtain only relevant information central to the claims or defenses, not to bolster a narrative in the press.
“If, on the other hand, the Wayfarer parties were ‘seeking’ only sensational headlines by serving the subpoenas rather than materials to support their claims and defenses, they are not entitled to the information… The purpose of civil discovery is to obtain information relevant to claims and defenses in court, not to prop up a public relations narrative outside of court.”
—Lively’s attorneys
In the wake of the Swift subpoenas, a series of rumors and headline-grabbing allegations circulated. According to press accounts, Baldoni’s legal team asserted that Lively requested Swift delete messages and tried to pressure Swift into publicly supporting the harassment case. However, Judge Lewis J. Liman later struck these claims from the court record, calling them improper, irrelevant, and potentially libelous. Lively’s representatives denounced the allegations as “categorically false.”
Judicial Decisions Further Undermine Baldoni’s Legal Position
Earlier this week, Judge Liman dealt a further setback to Baldoni, dismissing his countersuit that accused Lively of conspiring with The New York Times, Ryan Reynolds (her husband), and publicist Leslie Sloane to manufacture the sexual harassment and retaliation claims. These defeats come as Baldoni continues pushing for Swift’s involvement through ongoing legal maneuvers.
A spokesperson for Lively, referencing Baldoni’s string of dismissed claims, commented on his persistence regarding Swift’s texts.
“The ongoing attempts to once again try and use the world’s biggest star as a PR tactic in this matter reflects a public unraveling of epic proportions — and serves only to distract from the fact that Justin Baldoni’s lawsuits against Ms. Lively, Ryan Reynolds, their publicist and the New York Times have been entirely dismissed,”
—Lively spokesperson
At this time, representatives for both Baldoni and Swift have not responded to requests for comment regarding the discovery dispute.
New Developments: Lively Serves Subpoena to Scooter Braun
While the focus remains on the Blake Lively legal battle over Taylor Swift texts, a new front has opened. Lively is now seeking documents from Scooter Braun, a high-profile music executive with a public feud against Swift. Lively’s legal team wants to determine what Braun knows about the alleged smear campaign, particularly since his company HYBE America reportedly controls a stake in The Agency Group PR — the publicity firm allegedly involved in damaging Lively’s reputation.
As the federal case unfolds, every move continues to draw in prominent names from the entertainment and media industries, placing intense scrutiny not just on the original sexual harassment allegations, but also on the use of megastar Taylor Swift’s celebrity within legal and public relations’ strategies. The outcome of the battle for Lively’s and Swift’s private texts may influence practices for discovery in Hollywood legal feuds, as well as how stars navigate lawsuits where their personal communications become the battleground.
