Taylor Swift Excluded From Baldoni-Lively Narrative, as Subpoena Is Withdrawn

by

Justin Baldoni’s legal representatives have retracted the summons they issued to Taylor Swift and her legal team. This action was taken following objections raised by Taylor’s team, who considered the subpoena to be an unjustified search for irrelevant information, or in other words, an “unwarranted fishing expedition.

Friendly lawyers representing Taylor Swift and actress Blake Lively have submitted requests to invalidate a subpoena demanding the exchange of confidential communications between their legal teams.

The phrase “online whisper campaign” is used to describe the spreading of negative rumors or information about someone through unofficial channels on the internet.)

On Thursday, it was stated by Lively’s representative that Baldoni attempted to use Swift’s fame to divert attention away from the genuine matters at hand within the case.

OR

Thursday saw a statement from Lively’s spokesperson claiming that Baldoni tried to capitalize on Swift’s stardom to shift focus from the true issues in the case.

OR

Lively’s representative declared on Thursday that Baldoni aimed to leverage Swift’s fame to divert focus from the real problems in the case.

The representative stated that they are relieved Justin Baldoni and the Wayfarer Parties have dropped their bothersome subpoenas aimed at Taylor Swift and her legal team. They backed Taylor’s team’s efforts to dismiss these unwarranted subpoenas, and they will persist in defending any individual subjected to harassment or threats unfairly.

In Baldoni’s lawsuit, Swift was mentioned as a well-known friend of Lively’s, who supported her during a creative disagreement. Baldoni, both the director and co-star of the film, claimed that he felt compelled by Swift and Reynolds – whom Lively referred to as her “dragons” – to agree to Lively’s script modifications.

The subpoenas served on Swift and her legal team, dated May 8th and April 28th, don’t seem to relate directly to the specific allegation being made.

As stated by Bryan Freedman, Baldoni’s primary attorney, it appears he was seeking proof that Lively’s legal representative made threats to disclose messages between Lively and Swift, unless Swift publicly declared her support for Lively.

Freedman claimed he got a voicemail on Valentine’s Day from someone with strong ties to Taylor Swift. Later in a discussion, this individual (who Freedman chose not to name) stated that Blake Lively’s attorney had requested Swift to publish a supportive social media post about Lively. The person also mentioned they had threateningly suggested they could disclose a decade’s worth of text conversations between the two celebrities if Swift didn’t comply. According to Freedman, Swift’s lawyer subsequently accused Lively’s attorney of extortion and ended the call.

Additionally, it was asserted that Lively allegedly asked Swift to erase their text conversations a few months prior, as reported by Freedman.

As a movie enthusiast, I’ve come across an interesting tidbit in the industry news. Freedman asserted that Swift’s legal representative had written down the supposedly extortionate conversation in a letter, addressed to Lively’s lawyer. He aims to acquire this document using a subpoena.

Lively’s legal team firmly denied Freedman’s accusations as “undoubtedly and clearly baseless,” and contended that the main objective behind the court submission was to disseminate sensational allegations through a mechanism that would protect them from potential charges of defamation.

Lawyers representing Swift and Lively both contended that the accusations had no bearing on the genuine disputes and counterarguments being addressed in the trial.

According to Freedman’s court filing, it was suggested that the motions to dismiss might no longer be necessary because talks with Swift’s legal team, Venable LLP, were ongoing. It appears that these negotiations led to some information being disclosed voluntarily, which makes the subpoenas unnecessary.

From the start, the Baldoni and Wayfarer team have made Taylor Swift, a global inspiration for tens of millions, the focus of this case. However, when it came to defending themselves in federal court, they chose to back down. Eventually, they’ll exhaust all their attempts to divert attention from the allegations of sexual harassment and retaliation they are facing.

A spokesperson for Swift previously dismissed the subpoena as a bid for “tabloid clickbait.”

The representative stated that Taylor Swift had no direct involvement with this movie at all. She wasn’t part of the casting process, didn’t contribute to the creative decisions, didn’t compose the music for the film, and didn’t review any edits or provide feedback before its release. In fact, she only watched ‘It Ends With Us’ after it was publicly available, and during 2023 and 2024, she was touring globally, leading the largest concert tour ever recorded.

Previously, Judge Lewis Liman dismissed Lively’s accusations against Freedman and warned him that he might face penalties if he made any more mistakes.

Read More

2025-05-22 22:28