In December 2024, actress Blake Lively filed a lawsuit against her It Ends With Us co-star and director Justin Baldoni and his production company, Wayfarer Studios, alleging sexual harassment on set and a subsequent campaign to derail her reputation. Baldoni swiftly counter-sued for defamation, prompting a complex legal battle that has since captured headlines for its unexpected involvement of pop superstar Taylor Swift.
Discovery Dispute: What’s at Stake
At the core of the latest legal skirmish is a set of private messages between Lively and Swift discussing on-set conditions. Baldoni’s legal team argues these communications are directly relevant to Lively’s claims of a hostile work environment and her allegations that she was retaliated against after raising concerns. Lively, in turn, contended that the messages had no bearing on Baldoni’s conduct and moved to block their disclosure.
Magistrate Judge Lewis Liman’s Ruling
On June 18, 2025, U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman rejected Lively’s motion to quash Baldoni’s discovery requests. In his order, Judge Liman noted that Lively herself had characterized Swift as possessing knowledge of on-set issues, making the messages “reasonably tailored to discover information that would prove or disprove Lively’s harassment and retaliation claims.” He emphasized that relevance under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b) is broad and that Lively’s free-speech concerns did not override Baldoni’s entitlement to relevant evidence.
Timeline of Subpoena Attempts
Early May 2025
Baldoni’s attorneys issued subpoenas directly to Swift and her legal representatives, seeking any correspondence between Swift and Lively regarding the film. Swift’s team promptly objected, labeling the move an “unwarranted fishing expedition” and voicing concerns about the undue burden on a third party with no stake in the dispute.
Mid-May 2025
Following Swift’s objection, Baldoni’s team withdrew the direct subpoenas but indicated plans to pursue the same messages through Lively’s own document production obligations. Lively then filed a motion to prevent any discovery into her private communications with Swift, arguing that such requests were “unnecessary and intrusive.”
June 18, 2025
Judge Liman denied Lively’s motion, paving the way for Baldoni to obtain access to the contested messages through the standard discovery process.
Legal Arguments Presented by Both Sides
Baldoni’s Position
Relevant Evidence: Baldoni’s counsel maintains that Swift’s messages may contain discussions of complaints about the working environment—information that could corroborate or contradict Lively’s claims of harassment.
Proper Scope: By relying on Lively’s own statements that Swift was involved in conversations about set issues, Baldoni argues the discovery request is no broader than required to uncover admissible evidence.
Lively’s Position
Privacy and Prejudice: Lively contends that her private communications with a close friend and one of the world’s most famous artists should remain shielded from public disclosure absent a compelling justification.
Irrelevance: She maintains that Swift was never involved in creative decisions or production matters and that any environmental complaints were handled internally, outside of Swift’s purview.
Implications for Taylor Swift
Third-Party Involvement in Litigation
Swift’s uninvited entanglement underscores the risks public figures face when their personal associations become fodder for high-stakes lawsuits. Though not a party to the dispute, she has been named multiple times in court filings and media reports, prompting concerns about the precedent set when private celebrity communications become discoverable.
Balance Between Privacy and Discovery
The judge’s ruling highlights the tension between a litigant’s right to privacy and an opposing party’s right to obtain relevant evidence. While third-party communications are generally protected, courts may compel their production when the communications bear directly on the claims or defenses at issue.
Reactions from the Parties and Their Representatives
Blake Lively’s Response
Following the court’s order, a spokesperson for Lively issued a statement to Billboard, emphasizing that Lively had “produced far more documents in this case” than Baldoni and accusing his team of attempting to “drag Taylor Swift into the saga” for publicity. The statement pledged to challenge any overreach in discovery and to continue protecting Swift’s privacy.
Justin Baldoni’s Response
Baldoni’s representatives declined to comment publicly on the court’s decision but indicated to Variety that they remain focused on uncovering the truth about Lively’s harassment claims and will pursue all relevant evidence, as permitted by the court.
Taylor Swift’s Response
Swift’s camp has not issued a formal reaction to the discovery ruling, but in May they characterized the initial subpoena as “tabloid clickbait” and reiterated that Swift played no role in the film’s creative or casting decisions.
Broader Impact on Hollywood Litigation
Celebrities as Witnesses and Witnesses to Disputes
This case illustrates how personal relationships among industry high-fliers can become entangled in litigation. The potential disclosure of Swift’s private messages may have a chilling effect on how performers communicate informally about sensitive workplace issues.
Discovery Battles and Public Perception
High-profile discovery disputes often play out in the media before evidence is even exchanged in court. The Lively–Baldoni battle demonstrates the strategic use of public relations alongside legal filings, as each side seeks to shape the narrative and influence public opinion while jockeying for advantage in litigation.
What Happens Next?
Production of Documents
Over the coming weeks, Lively’s legal team must sift through her communications with Swift and produce any messages that fall within the court-approved scope. Privilege assertions or redactions may be litigated further if the parties disagree on the applicability of privacy protections or relevance.
Potential for Appeal
Although discovery orders are generally not immediately appealable, Lively may renew objections at the magistrate level or seek a protective order in an attempt to limit the burden and scope of document production. Whether the discovery request survives such challenges will determine if Swift’s messages become part of the court record.
Trial Date and Further Proceedings
With the case slated for trial in March 2026, remaining discovery—including depositions, expert reports, and additional document exchanges—must be completed in the coming months. The inclusion of Swift’s messages could influence key factual determinations about on-set conduct and the credibility of harassment and retaliation allegations.
Conclusion
In denying Blake Lively’s effort to block the production of her private messages with Taylor Swift, Judge Liman affirmed the principle that relevant evidence—even personal communications with a non-party celebrity—may be subject to disclosure in civil litigation. As the It Ends With Us case advances toward trial, the arrival of Swift’s messages could prove pivotal in resolving competing accounts of the on-set environment. At the same time, the ruling underscores ongoing debates about privacy rights, discovery limits and the interplay between legal strategy and public relations in the age of celebrity-driven litigation.
READ MORE: Tom Cruise and Dolly Parton Among Stars to Receive Honorary Oscars
