Blake Lively has issued a strong rebuttal to Justin Baldoni following his announcement that Taylor Swift agreed to sit for a deposition amid their ongoing legal dispute. The exchange escalated on Friday, September 12, as Lively’s legal team accused Baldoni and his representatives of involving Swift to advance their media strategy and criticized their delay in scheduling the deposition.
Legal Teams Dispute Timing and Motivation Behind Swift’s Deposition
Lively’s attorneys highlighted that Baldoni’s group waited too long to pursue Swift’s deposition, objecting to any extension of time for discovery. They argued that Baldoni’s team only recently contacted Swift’s representatives to arrange deposition dates, which are proposed for late October—several weeks after the fact discovery deadline. According to Lively’s filing, this timing is improper and undermines procedural fairness.
Her team stated,
“In this latest effort, the [Baldoni and his team] assert — though, notably, without evidence — that [Swift] has supposedly ‘agreed’ to sit for a deposition sometime between October 20-25 (some three weeks after the close of fact discovery in this matter).”
This claim underscores the late stage at which Baldoni has sought to involve Swift, despite the lengthy discovery period.
Lively’s lawyers also emphasized that Baldoni’s side failed to explain their sudden need for Swift’s deposition, which would be highly unusual given the cut-off for discovery already passed. They wrote,
“Such a showing would be expected for any deposition occurring after the close of discovery, especially so for a third party, but is even more relevant for this third party, whom [Baldoni’s team] have consistently sought to use to generate a media spectacle in this matter.”
This indicates their belief that Swift’s involvement is more about publicity than substantive legal necessity.
Delays and Dismissed Subpoenas Fuel Tensions Between Legal Teams
Lively’s representation drew attention to the fact that Baldoni’s lawyers had dropped a subpoena for Swift back in May without explanation. They criticized the Wayfarer Defendants for abruptly renewing the deposition demand late in the process, stating,
“Now, without explanation, long after dates and locations for all other party and third-party witnesses have been negotiated and agreed to and without ever serving, a renewed notice of a subpoena, the Wayfarer Defendants come to this Court and demand the right to take this deposition — and this deposition alone — more than three weeks after the close of fact discovery and ten days after the parties are due to exchange expert reports.”
This passage highlights the frustration from Lively’s side about what they characterize as Baldoni’s lack of diligence and respect for procedural timings in the litigation process.
Additionally, Lively’s team criticized the disregard for Swift’s demanding professional schedule, writing,
“Discovery has been ongoing for more than six months, and [Swift] is someone whose calendar should be presumed to be packed with professional obligations for months in advance. At any point over the past six months, [Baldoni’s team] could have noticed a deposition, served a subpoena, and negotiated an agreeable time and place for this deposition. But they did not.”
Taylor Swift’s Role and Involvement Addressed by Representatives
Swift’s spokesperson previously refuted claims linking her extensively to the film involved in the lawsuit. Swift’s team clarified that her connection was limited to licensing one song, “My Tears Ricochet,” and emphasized she had no other involvement in the production or creative aspects of the film.
They stated,
“Taylor Swift never set foot on the set of this movie, she was not involved in any casting or creative decisions, she did not score the film, she never saw an edit or made any notes on the film, she did not even see It Ends With Us until weeks after its public release, and was traveling around the globe during 2023 and 2024 headlining the biggest tour in history.”
The representative further dismissed the deposition subpoena as a tactic to attract media attention, noting,
“The connection Taylor had to this film was permitting the use of one song, ‘My Tears Ricochet.’ Given that her involvement was licensing a song for the film, which 19 other artists also did, this document subpoena is designed to use Taylor Swift’s name to draw public interest by creating tabloid clickbait instead of focusing on the facts of the case.”
Upcoming Trial and Legal Implications
The legal conflict between Lively and Baldoni continues to unfold as the trial is currently set for May 2026. With discovery deadlines having passed, the question over whether Swift’s deposition will proceed remains contentious. Lively’s rejection of Baldoni’s request, alongside her team’s allegations regarding media manipulation, signals a hardening stance that could influence the case’s course and public perception.
The court’s decisions on extending discovery or permitting the late deposition could affect how efficiently the case moves towards resolution and whether additional third-party involvement will be allowed. This dispute spotlights the challenges of balancing procedural fairness with high-profile personalities engaged in legal matters.
