Blake Lively has forcefully objected to the use of a subpoena served to Taylor Swift in the legal battle involving It Ends With Us director Justin Baldoni, emphasizing the seriousness of the situation and warning against reducing the complex legal process to “tabloid entertainment.” This development comes amid escalating tensions following Swift’s official entry into the case by subpoena, just days after her own representatives denounced her involvement. Lively and her team have spoken out against what they describe as public intimidation and bullying, signaling deepening frustration and concern over the lawsuit’s public portrayal and the reputational risks it carries for women involved.
Representatives for Blake Lively issued a statement asserting,
The statement condemned the decision to include Taylor Swift in the lawsuit, drawing attention to her global influence and asserting that the involvement of the pop star only serves to fuel gossip and trivialize the significant legal claims at stake.
was being used, they added, to turn the case into “entertainment for the tabloids.”
Lively’s criticism extended to Baldoni’s counsel, specifically attorney Bryan Freedman, who had previously suggested that the depositions of Baldoni and Lively could be ticketed events at Madison Square Garden with proceeds donated to victims of domestic abuse. Lively’s representatives blasted this notion as deeply inappropriate, reiterating the harmful effects of such tactics on the women involved and stressing the enduring frustration and distress overriding the entire dispute.
Attempts to obtain additional comment from Lively and Freedman’s representatives have so far been unsuccessful. The mounting negativity and intensity surrounding the case remain evident as both sides continue to speak through official statements and legal filings.
The controversy heightened after Taylor Swift was formally subpoenaed for her alleged role in helping to cast Isabella Ferrer as young Lily in It Ends With Us. Swift’s team responded quickly, unequivocally stating she had never set foot on set and that her only involvement was licensing her song, “My Tears Ricochet,” for use in the film and trailer alongside nineteen other artists.
said Swift’s spokesperson, explaining that she, in fact, did not see the movie until weeks after it was publicly released. Swift’s representatives described the subpoena as an opportunistic attempt to
According to Blake Lively, this development underscores the disturbing pattern of intimidation and public shaming that has been at the heart of the ongoing legal confrontation, which began months earlier and has since spiraled beyond initial claims into a high-profile, emotionally charged dispute involving multiple lawsuits and accusations.
The origins of the conflict trace back to December 2024, when Blake Lively filed a California Civil Rights Department (CRD) complaint against Justin Baldoni and several associates from his production company Wayfarer Studios. Lively accused Baldoni and his team of orchestrating a calculated and sophisticated press campaign in retaliation for her complaints about misconduct on the set of It Ends With Us. Her complaint listed allegations of invasive, unwelcome, and sexually inappropriate behavior by Baldoni and Wayfarer CEO Jamey Heath, among others, causing significant personal and professional harm to Lively and other cast and crew members.
The legal action outlined grave accusations, including sexual harassment, retaliation, failure to investigate or remedy harassment, aiding and abetting harassment, breach of contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, invasion of privacy, and interference with her professional prospects. Lively asserted in her statement to the press,
The day after Lively’s complaint, The New York Times published a detailed report describing the alleged smear campaign, citing extensive messages between Baldoni, his team, and crisis communicators, and making much of the CRD complaint public. This report immediately drew widespread attention and support for Lively from colleagues and the public alike.
Baldoni and his legal counsel Bryan Freedman responded adamantly, dismissing Lively’s accusations as false and salacious, claiming the negative press was the result of her own conduct during the film’s promotion. Freedman maintained that Wayfarer’s engagement with a crisis manager was entirely standard and prior to any dispute with Lively. He characterized internal messages as typical scenario planning, asserting,
Within hours of these exchanges, Baldoni’s agency, William Morris Endeavor (WME), dropped him as a client. This move triggered further allegations after Baldoni claimed that Ryan Reynolds, Lively’s husband, influenced the decision during a Hollywood premiere. WME categorically denied these claims, stating publicly that neither Reynolds nor Lively exerted any pressure to sever Baldoni’s representation and refuting any connection to that event.
Following these revelations, cast members from It Ends With Us, the book’s author Colleen Hoover, and actress Jenny Slate expressed public solidarity with Blake Lively, commending her honesty and bravery in the face of what they described as a disturbing attack on her reputation. Slate in particular described Lively as
and added,
The controversy expanded in late December 2024, when Liz Plank, cohost of The Man Enough Podcast with Baldoni and Heath, announced her departure from the show, citing the overwhelming climate in the wake of Lively’s lawsuit and the unfolding public discourse. Plank promised to support everyone confronting injustice and accountably holding those in power responsible, hinting that more revelations could follow as she continued to process recent events.
On the legal front, Baldoni’s former publicist Stephanie Jones and her agency Jonesworks LLC sued Baldoni, Wayfarer, and their new publicists, alleging a coordinated defamation and breach of contract campaign. According to Jones’s lawsuit, Abel and Nathan at RWA Communications and The Agency Group PR LLC
against Lively. Jones claimed she was scapegoated for the crisis while lacking any knowledge or involvement. Defendants allegedly defamed and attacked Jones in an attempt to shield their own actions from scrutiny.
Lively’s attorneys disclosed that text messages featured in investigative articles were lawfully obtained through a subpoena issued to Jonesworks, though Freedman declared he would pursue legal action against Jones for allegedly releasing such messages to Lively’s team without defense clients’ consent.
On December 31, 2024, Baldoni, Wayfarer, and related entities filed a sweeping lawsuit against The New York Times. The complaint accused the newspaper of libel, false light invasion of privacy, promissory fraud and breach of contract, arguing that its reportage on the alleged smear campaign was based almost exclusively on Lively’s version of events. According to the lawsuit,
Ironically, plaintiffs claimed that it was Lively who masterminded a campaign against them, not the reverse, a claim she denied outright.
The New York Times stood by its reporting, issuing a statement underscoring its independent role to
and vowing to “vigorously defend against the lawsuit.” The paper cited a review of thousands of original documents and text messages as its evidence base.
That same day, Lively filed a new lawsuit in New York against Baldoni, Wayfarer, and associated defendants, reiterating her earlier claims of sexual harassment, retaliation and related grievances. Her attorneys responded to The New York Times lawsuit by refuting allegations that her complaint was a ruse and emphasizing that federal action against Baldoni and Wayfarer was both genuine and robustly substantiated.
The ongoing conflict took another turn when plaintiffs in the New York Times-related suit signaled their intention to file further litigation, making explicit statements that
and
Bryan Freedman confirmed in an NBC News interview that legal action targeting Blake Lively was “absolutely” in development.
The narrative extended into pop culture discourse when social media users speculated that Reynolds mocked Baldoni in Deadpool & Wolverine—speculation which Baldoni’s lawyer directly addressed, admonishing that
Freedman added that proper recourse meant “file HR complaints” and “follow a legal process” instead of
Lively’s attorneys responded with pointed remarks about the real-life consequences of the publicity surrounding the legal fight.
they argued, describing the events as “retaliatory astroturfing” against Lively and others reporting sexual misconduct. Her team warned of classic victim-blaming strategies intended to distract from substantive allegations of abuse, stressing that
and reiterating their intent to pursue justice in the courts.
In reply, Freedman asserted that Blake Lively and her team
further vowing to release comprehensive evidence to substantiate Baldoni’s claims.
By mid-January 2025, the scale of litigation widened when Baldoni, Heath, Wayfarer, and their publicists filed suit against Lively, Reynolds, Leslie Sloane (Lively’s publicist), and Sloane’s firm Vision PR. This new suit charged the defendants with civil extortion, defamation, false light invasion of privacy, and multiple forms of contractual interference.
The plaintiffs denied every abuse allegation and accused Lively of asserting control over It Ends With Us, working in tandem with Reynolds, Sloane, and others to disseminate damaging stories to the press following backlash from the movie’s marketing. The complaint argued that Lively and Reynolds intended to
allegedly in partnership with The New York Times. In response, Freedman questioned whether Blake Lively was
Lively’s legal team countered, dismissing the latest lawsuit as
Their statement identified a familiar pattern:
Lively’s lawyers insisted their evidence would show that she — and others — had negative experiences with Baldoni and that her marketing activities followed Sony instructions, not any hostile campaign.
they declared.
In a bid to challenge Lively’s claims, Baldoni’s legal team released behind-the-scenes footage from production of It Ends With Us. They insisted this evidence disproved Lively’s allegations, characterizing the interactions as professional and appropriate. However, Lively’s representatives claimed the material
in her lawsuit, arguing that the footage showed her discomfort and a lack of consent to certain improvised moments by Baldoni. Lively’s camp said,
The tension surrounding the release and interpretation of such evidence intensified legal pressure on both sides, heightening concern among those closely following the case about the climate of retaliation and intimidation described by Lively and her legal team.
Amidst the hostile legal landscape, Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds requested that the trial judge impose a gag order on Baldoni’s lawyer Bryan Freedman, contending that ongoing public statements threatened to prejudice the case. This step was taken as both teams positioned themselves for an extended courtroom battle and attempted to control the narrative outside the courtroom.
In late January 2025, a seven-minute voice memo allegedly sent from Baldoni to Lively during the film’s production surfaced online. In this message, Baldoni appeared to casually reference a script rewrite attributed to Lively, as well as a meeting with Reynolds and Taylor Swift. He lauded their creativity and offered an apology for his earlier apprehension toward her ideas.
he remarked.
Baldoni also acknowledged,
The publication of this voice memo added a new dimension to the dispute, providing rare insight into the personal dynamics underlying the broader conflict and offering context for Lively’s ongoing sense of distress and frustration.
One month after Blake Lively initiated her formal lawsuit, the court scheduled a trial for March 9, 2026. The anticipation for this trial has been accompanied by the promise of further revelations, with both sides preparing to introduce substantial evidence and witness testimony. The complexity and negative intensity of the conflict continued to mount as the date approached, with public observers and legal experts anticipating a closely watched legal showdown.
In another legal filing, Baldoni amended his countersuit to include The New York Times as a defendant, increasing the value of the claim to $400 million. The amended complaint accused Lively and her associates of orchestrating a strategy to feed the newspaper
This move set off a scramble for discovery and prompted new rounds of legal arguments over the admissibility and interpretation of communications between all parties.
In early February 2025, Baldoni launched a public-facing website chronicling the lawsuit against Blake Lively and others, posting amended complaints and a purported timeline of events, including screenshots of text messages between Lively, Reynolds, and Baldoni. Freedman, in an interview, insisted,
This public dissemination of alleged evidence introduced further distress and a sense of overwhelm among those involved. It also intensified scrutiny of how both sides were attempting to frame the narrative for public consumption and judicial consideration.
On February 18, 2025, Lively’s attorneys filed an amended complaint that revealed additional women who worked on It Ends With Us had come forward with their own allegations of discomfort regarding Baldoni’s behavior.
the new complaint stated. The attorneys asserted that the experiences of these women had been documented in real time, with explicit acknowledgment by Baldoni in writing contemporaneous with the reports. However, due to an environment described as “dangerous” and “retaliatory,” the identities of these women remained anonymous.
Baldoni’s attorney dismissed these claims as unsubstantiated hearsay, alleging the new witnesses were
This response reflected the entrenched negativity and ongoing battle over the credibility and significance of Lively’s allegations, as both legal teams continued to maneuver for advantage ahead of the scheduled trial.
As Baldoni’s litigation strategy encompassed an expanding list of defendants, including Blake Lively’s publicist Leslie Sloane and her firm Vision PR, Sloane’s attorneys filed a motion to dismiss their client from the lawsuit. They argued there was no substantive basis for the accusations and portrayed their inclusion in the complaint as a maneuver meant to distract from Lively’s central charges.
Meanwhile, Lively reinforced her legal strategy by hiring Nick Shapiro, the former Deputy Chief of Staff at the CIA, to advise on communications for the ongoing lawsuit. According to her legal team, Shapiro’s crisis management experience from roles at the CIA, Visa, and Airbnb would be instrumental in countering the hostile climate and persistent attempts to undermine Lively’s claims in the public arena.
The New York Times, now embroiled in a $250 million lawsuit from Baldoni aside from the $400 million countersuit, moved to dismiss itself from the latter, arguing it should not be included in a dispute primarily between individuals and corporations with which it has no direct contract or involvement. The Times denounced what it called Baldoni’s “one-sided tale,” and the motion for dismissal triggered a pause in discovery as the presiding judge assessed the strength of the newspaper’s request. The judge observed “substantial grounds” for dismissal and explained that Baldoni’s side would not be prejudiced by a temporary suspension of evidence sharing.
said a spokesperson for the newspaper.
The fierce dispute between Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni, fueled by the inclusion of Taylor Swift and other high-profile figures, has become an emblematic case highlighting the risks faced by women speaking out about misconduct in the entertainment industry. Lively’s response to Swift’s subpoena has emphasized the distress and frustration that arise when serious claims are publicly transformed into speculative entertainment. The ongoing legal maneuvers, multiple lawsuits, and persistent public statements reveal a climate of hostility and suspicion that continues to inflict emotional and professional tolls on those involved.
As the trial date in March 2026 approaches, the outcomes have significant ramifications for workplace harassment policies, the credibility and safety of victims reporting abuse, and the role of the media in shaping public understanding of legal claims. The ongoing battle between Blake Lively and Baldoni has already prompted more women to come forward, although many remain fearful of retaliation. At the same time, the legal fight underscores how public figures’ reputations, careers, and personal relationships can become entangled in litigation that plays out both in court and in the media arena.
The conclusion of these lawsuits—and whatever official findings emerge—will likely influence industry standards for addressing misconduct and retaliation, while leaving an indelible mark on the careers and lives of those at the heart of the case. Blake Lively’s insistence that the legal dispute not be reduced to tabloid fodder reflects a broader hope that issues of harassment and retaliation can be addressed with the seriousness they demand, both in the courtroom and in the court of public opinion.
Regardless of the ultimate verdict, the negative intensity, distress, and frustration saturating the proceedings reveal the steep emotional and professional costs endured by all parties, whether they are speaking out or attempting to defend themselves. As the legal clock continues, the entertainment industry and the public will closely track whether Blake Lively’s stand leads to systemic change or further entrenches the controversy as the case to watch in the ongoing conversation about justice for women in the workplace.
