Court Denies Request for Taylor Swift Deposition in Lively-Baldoni Legal Dispute

Federal Judge Lewis Liman has denied Justin Baldoni’s legal team’s request for an extension to depose Taylor Swift in the ongoing civil litigation between “It Ends With Us” co-stars Blake Lively and Baldoni. The ruling, issued Friday evening, criticized Baldoni’s attorneys for waiting until the final moments to seek additional time.
Judge Liman noted that discovery proceedings had been active for approximately six months, questioning why Baldoni’s team delayed their extension request. The court found insufficient evidence that attorneys had served a renewed subpoena on Swift or demonstrated proper diligence in pursuing her testimony.
Baldoni’s legal representatives had sought an extension until late October, claiming Swift’s professional obligations prevented her from appearing for deposition before October 20, 2025. The timing coincides with Swift’s upcoming album release “The Life of a Showgirl” scheduled for October 3.

Conflicting Claims About Swift’s Agreement

Thursday court filings from Baldoni’s attorneys asserted that Swift had agreed to participate in deposition proceedings but was unavailable due to prior commitments. However, Swift’s legal counsel disputed this characterization in their own court submission.
Swift’s attorney clarified that their client had never consented to deposition participation and maintained she holds “no material role in this action.” The filing specified that while Swift might accommodate scheduling during the week of October 20 if legally compelled, this represented potential availability rather than voluntary agreement.
The communication between legal teams apparently occurred just three days before the court filing, with Swift’s representatives emphasizing their consistent position that she lacks substantive involvement in the dispute.
Media Strategy Accusations
Lively’s legal team accused Baldoni’s attorneys of seeking publicity by attempting to involve Swift in the proceedings. Their Friday court filing characterized Baldoni’s actions as part of a “relentless media strategy” designed to generate attention rather than advance legitimate legal interests.
The filing criticized Baldoni’s team for apparent “disrespect for Ms. Swift’s privacy and schedule,” noting they had not contacted Swift’s counsel about deposition logistics until the current week despite months of ongoing litigation.
These accusations suggest the celebrity’s involvement serves strategic rather than substantive purposes in the legal proceedings.

Swift’s Limited Connection to Case

Swift’s connection to the dispute stems from text message exchanges revealed during Baldoni’s previously dismissed countersuit. One message showed Baldoni thanking Lively for script contributions, referencing “Ryan and Taylor” in context of creative collaboration.
Swift received an initial subpoena in May that was subsequently withdrawn. Her representatives emphasized at the time that Swift never visited the film set, participated in casting decisions, contributed to scoring, or viewed editing materials. She reportedly saw the completed film weeks after public release while touring internationally during 2023-2024.
Swift’s sole involvement involved licensing one song, “My Tears Ricochet,” for the soundtrack alongside 19 other artists. Her spokesperson characterized the original subpoena as designed to generate “tabloid clickbait” rather than address case facts.

Current Legal Status

While Baldoni’s countersuit against Lively and her husband Ryan Reynolds was dismissed, Lively continues pursuing sexual harassment and retaliation claims against Baldoni. The ongoing litigation centers on alleged misconduct during production of their romantic drama film.
The case highlights tensions between co-stars that reportedly developed during filming, with Lively alleging inappropriate behavior and subsequent retaliation efforts by Baldoni and associated parties.
Trial Timeline
Federal court proceedings in New York are scheduled for next spring, with both parties preparing their cases for trial. The judge’s denial of the Swift deposition extension suggests the court’s focus remains on directly relevant testimony and evidence.
The ruling demonstrates judicial reluctance to permit fishing expeditions involving high-profile celebrities whose connections to central disputes appear tangential. This approach protects uninvolved parties while maintaining litigation focus on substantive claims and defenses.