Written by Kathy Wheatley on
 June 20, 2025

Judge denies Blake Lively's bid to block Taylor Swift texts in Baldoni case

Private conversations between Blake Lively and Taylor Swift are now subject to discovery in a high-profile legal dispute involving actor Justin Baldoni, following a federal judge’s recent decision.

On June 18, 2025, a New York judge rejected Lively’s attempt to shield messages with the music star, as part of an ongoing case involving allegations of harassment and retaliation tied to the film "It Ends With Us", Fox News reported.

U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman ruled that the targeted records were sufficiently specific and relevant to the claims made by Lively. Baldoni’s legal team sought access to communications between Lively and Swift, alleging they might contain evidence related to the environment on the film’s set or the legal conflict.

The dispute between Lively and Baldoni stems from the production of the romantic drama “It Ends With Us,” which began facing legal scrutiny in December 2024. Lively initiated claims of sexual harassment and retaliation against Baldoni and his associated company, the Wayfarer parties. The case is scheduled for trial in March 2026 in a New York court.

According to the judge, Lively told the court that Swift may have been aware of conversations or complaints involving the film’s work atmosphere. For that reason, Liman determined that messages between them could potentially support—or undermine—Lively’s legal claims.

Efforts To Include Swift Go Back Months

Attempts to draw Swift into the dispute appear to date back to August 2024. That month, a public relations firm led by Melissa Nathan, which was representing Baldoni, reportedly drafted a crisis strategy document identifying Swift as a threat to manage. The document allegedly labeled her a “bully” and proposed influencing her fan base.

Despite having subpoenaed Swift at one point, Baldoni’s team later withdrew the request. A source told Fox News Digital in May 2025 that the subpoena was no longer necessary since relevant information had been provided voluntarily.

Representatives for Swift maintain that her involvement in the film was minimal. She permitted the use of her track “My Tears Ricochet,” which was licensed along with songs from 19 other artists. The track appeared in the trailer and one film scene, but marked her only form of participation.

Swift's Involvement Called Minimal

Swift’s spokesperson stated that she was not involved in the movie’s creative process or production decisions. She did not visit the set, view the film before release, or contribute to casting or scoring. During the entire filming period, Swift was on an international tour headlining her record-breaking concert series.

Given those circumstances, her team argued that the subpoena amounted to using her celebrity status to fuel media attention. The representative described the demand as an effort to “create tabloid clickbait” rather than seek substantive input related to the actual dispute.

Baldoni and the Wayfarer group have not commented publicly on the withdrawn subpoena or on why Swift was included in their legal strategies. Their decision to pull back from demanding her appearance came before Lively sought a court order to restrict access to their private conversations.

Lively's Legal Team Pushes Back

Lively’s side maintains that Baldoni is trying to use Swift’s popularity as a strategic diversion. A representative repeatedly emphasized that Baldoni’s legal team had already received no material from Swift, despite claims to the contrary from purported insiders.

The representative also noted that the court rejected a separate request from the Wayfarer parties to compel documents from Lively. They argued that Lively had provided more documentation in the discovery process than Baldoni’s side had contributed.

“The court’s ruling,” the representative stated, “rests on the Wayfarer Parties’ admission that they received nothing from Taylor Swift.” They added that efforts to draw Swift into the legal spotlight were a consistent tactic stemming back to the early stages of the dispute.

Judge Comments on Broader Impact

In his ruling, Judge Liman acknowledged that requests like the one at hand can serve more than just legal goals. He noted that they often play a role both in court strategy and in shaping public narratives.

“A motion or request may be, and in this case often has been, both a legitimate litigation tactic and an attempt to maneuver in the broader court of public opinion,” Liman wrote.

Despite that, the judge still found the messaging relevant. Since Lively has acknowledged that Swift was aware of aspects of the work environment, Liman ruled that the request was limited and appropriate for discovery.

Representatives for both Baldoni and Swift did not respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment following the court’s latest decision. As the case progresses, further attempts to limit the scope of evidence may still emerge before its scheduled 2026 trial.

Author Image

About Kathy Wheatley

Your trusted source for independent, comprehensive entertainment news.
© 2025 - Insider Journal - All rights reserved
Privacy Policy
magnifier