Case Intel
- Pop superstar Taylor Swift refuses to testify voluntarily in Blake Lively’s defamation case against “It Ends With Us” co-star Justin Baldoni
- Swift’s lawyers say she’ll only appear if “forced” by the court during the week of October 20
- Lively’s team argues Baldoni waited six months to request Swift’s testimony, showing “disrespect” for the singer’s packed schedule
By SAMUEL LOPEZ
USA HERALD
Taylor Swift is pushing back against efforts to make her testify in the explosive legal battle between actress Blake Lively and her “It Ends With Us” co-star Justin Baldoni, with the pop star’s attorneys telling a Manhattan federal judge she won’t sit for questioning unless ordered by the court.
In a letter filed Friday with U.S. District Judge Lewis J. Liman, Swift’s legal team at powerhouse firm Venable LLP made clear their client “has not agreed to be deposed” in Lively’s defamation lawsuit. The attorneys, J. Douglas Baldridge and Katherine Wright Morrone, said Swift would only make herself available “if she is forced” and could accommodate a deposition during the week of October 20.
“Since the inception of this matter we have consistently maintained that my client has no material role in this action,” Swift’s lawyers wrote, distancing the Grammy winner from the Hollywood drama that has captivated tabloids for months.
The deposition fight represents the latest skirmish in a bitter legal war that erupted in late 2024 when Lively accused Baldoni of sexual harassment and running a coordinated smear campaign against her. The dispute stems from their work together on the romantic drama “It Ends With Us,” based on the bestselling novel.
Lively’s attorney, Michael J. Gottlieb of prestigious firm Willkie Farr & Gallagher, fired back at Baldoni’s team Friday, arguing they’re trying to unfairly extend court deadlines. Gottlieb accused the defendants of showing “astounding”disrespect for Swift’s privacy and schedule by waiting until the last minute to seek her testimony.
“Discovery has been ongoing for more than six months, and Ms. Swift is someone whose calendar should be presumed to be packed with professional obligations for months in advance,” Gottlieb told the judge.
The timing issue has become a crucial sticking point. Gottlieb pointed out that Baldoni’s legal team had six months to schedule Swift’s deposition but instead “previously noticed Ms. Swift’s deposition in May 2025, accompanied by a barrage of press stories covering the same, only to withdraw that subpoena to much fanfare.”
At the heart of the lawsuit are serious allegations that have rocked Hollywood. Lively claims Baldoni sexually harassed her during filming and then launched a calculated public relations attack when she complained. Her federal complaint details 13 separate claims related to what she describes as a systematic smear campaign.
The actress alleges Baldoni engaged in inappropriate behavior including an unwelcome on-set kiss and entering her dressing room without warning while she was undressed. When Lively raised concerns about his conduct, she claims Baldoni and his team orchestrated negative press coverage to damage her reputation.
Baldoni has vigorously denied the harassment allegations and struck back with his own legal offensive. He filed a $400 million libel lawsuit against Lively, her husband Ryan Reynolds, and Lively’s publicist Leslie Sloane in January, though that case has since been dismissed. He also sued the New York Times for what he claims was biased reporting that promoted Lively’s “unverified and self-serving narrative.”
While Swift’s exact role in the dispute remains unclear, her potential testimony appears significant enough that both sides are fighting over it in court. The pop star’s close friendship with Reynolds and Lively likely puts her in a position to have relevant information about the case, though her lawyers maintain she has no “material role” in the legal action.
Swift’s resistance to voluntary testimony reflects the high stakes involved for celebrities who find themselves caught up in Hollywood legal battles. Even peripheral involvement in such cases can generate unwanted publicity and consume valuable time for A-list entertainers with packed schedules.
