Blake Lively is requesting a “protective order” against Justin Baldoni’s legal team over their “continuing demands” for her communications with Taylor Swift, Us Weekly can confirm.
Lively, 37, submitted a letter to judge Lewis J. Liman on Friday, June 13, and viewed by Us, claiming that Baldoni’s Wayfarer Parties has “pursued” her communications with Swift, 35, while allegedly refusing to produce “the documents they publicly claimed to have received as part of a deal to withdraw their subpoenas” from Swift and her counsel.
As a result, Lively asked the judge to block Baldoni’s legal team from demanding her exchanges with Swift be made public, alleging that it’s been a “tactic” for the Wayfarer Parties since August 2023 to make the singer and her fan base “central to their media strategy” against Lively.
Lively argued in the letter that Swift’s communications are “not central” to her own claims against Baldoni, 41, and “irrelevant” to the Wayfarer Parties’ claims that were dismissed earlier this month.
The Gossip Girl alum alleged on Friday that Baldoni’s team is only requesting Swift’s correspondence as a “media strategy, not a litigation strategy.” The actress “respectfully requests that she be relieved from producing documents responsive to” related requests from Baldoni’s team, according to the filing.
Us Weekly has reached out to Baldoni for comment.
A source close to Baldoni, meanwhile, claimed to Us on Friday that “Blake identified Taylor as a witness with knowledge of the alleged workplace environment, retaliation and damages herself … With her own words on red carpets and filmed interviews.”
A spokesperson for Lively told Us in a statement on Friday, “Justin Baldoni and the Wayfarer parties are still demanding access to Taylor Swift’s private communications — despite having already subpoenaed and then withdrawn that subpoena after they ‘got all they needed.’ As reflected in today’s filing, their intent to drag Taylor Swift into this was evident as far back as August 2024, when the crisis PR firm led by Melissa Nathan included her in their ‘Scenario Planning’ document (Lively Amended Complaint, Exhibit D) and flagged the ‘TS fanbase’ as something to take ‘extremely seriously’ (Lively Amended Complaint, ¶214(b)).”
The statement continued: “The ongoing attempts to once again try and use the world’s biggest star as a PR tactic in this matter reflects a public unraveling of epic proportions—and serves only to distract from the fact that Justin Baldoni’s lawsuits against Ms. Lively, Ryan Reynolds, their publicist, and the New York Times have been entirely dismissed.”
Lively’s letter is the latest exchange in her and Baldoni’s legal battle, which began in December 2024. At the time, Lively filed a lawsuit against her It Ends With Us costar and director, accusing Baldoni of sexual harassment, creating a hostile work environment on the movie and orchestrating an alleged smear campaign against her.
Baldoni denied the allegations and filed a $400 million countersuit against Lively, her husband, Ryan Reynolds, and publicist Leslie Sloane.
He claimed that the trio took part in civil extortion, defamation and were guilty of false light invasion of privacy and more. Lively, Reynolds, 48, and Sloane all denied the allegations. Lively and Reynolds later filed for the lawsuit to be dismissed and Sloane requested to be removed.
In May, news broke that Baldoni had subpoenaed Swift, who has been friends with Lively for years, as their drama heated up and the initial lawsuit’s trial grew closer. (Lively and Baldoni are set to go to court in spring 2026.)
“Taylor Swift never set foot on the set of this movie, she was not involved in any casting or creative decisions, she did not score the film, she never saw an edit or made any notes on the film,” Swift’s rep told Us in a statement at the time. “She did not even see It Ends With Us until weeks after its public release, and was traveling around the globe during 2023 and 2024 headlining the biggest tour in history.”
The rep explained that Swift’s “connection” to the movie was simply “permitting the use of one song, ‘My Tears Ricochet.’” The statement alleged that Swift being subpoenaed was “designed to use Taylor Swift’s name to draw public interest by creating tabloid clickbait instead of focusing on the facts of the case.”
Later that month, Us confirmed that Swift would no longer be subpoenaed. A source close to the matter told Us that the summons was dropped “because information was voluntarily provided” by Swift to Baldoni’s team.
“We are pleased that Justin Baldoni and the Wayfarer Parties have withdrawn their harassing subpoenas to Taylor Swift and her law firm,” Lively said in a statement on May 22. “We supported the efforts of Taylor’s team to quash these inappropriate subpoenas directed to her counsel and we will continue to stand up for any third party who is unjustly harassed or threatened in the process.”
The statement continued: “The Baldoni and Wayfarer team have tried to put Taylor Swift, a woman who has been an inspiration for tens of millions across the globe, at the center of this case since day one. Exploiting Taylor Swift’s celebrity was the original plan in Melissa Nathan’s scenario planning document, and it continues to this day. Faced with having to justify themselves in federal court, they folded. At some point they will run out of distractions from the actual claims of sexual harassment and retaliation they are facing.”
Lively and Reynolds received another legal win earlier this month when a judge dismissed Baldoni’s $400 million lawsuit on June 9. Baldoni’s lawsuit against The New York Times, who was first to report Lively’s claims against him, was also dismissed.
“Ms. Lively and her team’s predictable declaration of victory is false, so let us be clear about the latest ruling,” Baldoni’s attorney Bryan Freedman told Us in a statement on June 10. “While the Court dismissed the defamation-related claims, the Court has invited us to amend four out of the seven claims against Ms. Lively, which will showcase additional evidence and refined allegations. This case is about false accusations of sexual harassment and retaliation and a nonexistent smear campaign, which Ms. Lively’s own team conveniently describes as ‘untraceable’ because they cannot prove what never happened.”
Freedman added: “Most importantly, Ms. Lively’s own claims are no truer today than they were yesterday, and with the facts on our side, we march forward with the same confidence that we had when Ms. Lively and her cohorts initiated this battle and look forward to her forthcoming deposition, which I will be taking. We are grateful for the organic show of support from the public and for the dedication of the Internet sleuth community who continue to cover the case with discernment and integrity.”
Lively, meanwhile, released her own statement after the legal win. “Last week, I stood proudly alongside 19 organizations united in defending women’s rights to speak up for their safety,” she wrote via her Instagram Story on June 9. “Like so many others, I’ve felt the pain of a retaliatory lawsuit, including the manufactured shame that tries to break us.”
“While the suit against me was defeated, so many don’t have the resources to fight back,” she continued. “I’m more resolved than ever to continue to stand for every woman’s right to have a voice in protecting themselves, including their safety, their integrity, their dignity and their story.”
