The courtroom saga surrounding Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni has already had more twists than most Hollywood dramas. But now, the fight has officially drawn in one of the most powerful names in the entertainment industry: Taylor Swift.
What began as a workplace and contractual dispute tied to the 2024 film It Ends With Us has snowballed into a high-profile legal battle that now risks pulling Swift — a global superstar with one of the busiest calendars in entertainment — into the center of depositions, subpoenas, and heated courtroom filings.
The controversy is not about Swift herself. Her only direct tie to the film was through licensing one of her songs, My Tears Ricochet, to appear on the soundtrack — a choice that gave the production emotional weight but seemed like little more than a business transaction at the time. Yet, because of Lively’s allegations about the filming environment and her attorneys naming Swift as someone she had confided in, Baldoni’s legal team has latched onto the singer’s name as potentially relevant in discovery. That decision has created friction between both sides, not to mention frustration from Swift’s camp, which insists she has no material connection to the case.
The latest flashpoint arrived when Baldoni’s attorneys suggested in a filing that Swift had “agreed” to sit for a deposition — testimony under oath that would force her to answer questions about possible conversations with Blake Lively regarding conditions on set. But Swift’s team immediately pushed back, making it clear that there was no such agreement.
Swift’s attorney, J. Douglas Baldridge, filed a letter to Judge Lewis Liman stating flatly:
“Since the inception of this matter we have consistently maintained that my client has no material role in this action. Further, my client did not agree to a deposition, but if she is forced into a deposition, we advised (after first hearing about the deposition just three days ago) that her schedule would accommodate the time required during the week of October 20 if the parties were able to work out their disputes. We take no role in those disputes.”
In other words, Swift is not volunteering. She’s making it clear that, if compelled, she will cooperate within the narrow limits of the law — but the idea that she willingly signed off on being dragged into the case is, in her view, misleading.
Lively’s lawyers seized on the misrepresentation as yet another attempt by Baldoni’s camp to use Swift’s celebrity as a distraction. “The Wayfarer Defendants have repeatedly sought to bring Ms. Swift into this litigation to fuel their relentless media strategy,” they argued in a letter of their own. To them, the claim that Swift had agreed to a deposition was little more than a ploy to generate headlines and pressure.
The legal proceedings themselves are moving forward at full speed. Discovery — the stage where both sides exchange documents, testimony, and evidence — is nearing its close, with a trial date locked in for March 9, 2026, in federal court in New York.
Deadlines have already been a point of contention. Lively’s attorneys recently asked the court to extend the cutoff for depositions from September 30 to October 10, claiming Baldoni’s team has dragged its feet on producing documents. And with Swift now in the mix, scheduling becomes even more delicate. Her professional commitments mean she cannot realistically sit for questioning until at least October 20.
That leaves the judge with a decision: whether to approve her deposition, and if so, how to fit it into a timeline that both sides are already sparring over.
The central question is why Swift, who licensed just one track for the soundtrack, has become such a lightning rod. The answer lies in Lively’s earlier statements.
When describing her experiences on the set of It Ends With Us, Lively identified Swift as someone with whom she had discussed or confided in regarding the work environment. That admission cracked the door open for Baldoni’s attorneys to argue that Swift’s communications — text messages, emails, or even conversations — might contain evidence relevant to Lively’s claims of harassment and retaliation.
Judge Liman already ruled on this in June, siding with Baldoni’s team on a narrower question of whether Lively’s communications with Swift could be discoverable. “Given that Lively has represented that Swift had knowledge of complaints or discussions about the working environment on the film, among other issues, the requests for messages with Swift regarding the film and this action are reasonably tailored to discover information that would prove or disprove Lively’s harassment and retaliation claims,” he wrote.
That ruling meant Swift could not be completely shielded from the discovery process. But it also did not automatically make her deposition inevitable. For Swift, the concern is not legal liability but being pulled into the public spotlight of a dispute she had no intention of entering.
This is not the first time Baldoni’s side has tried to rope Swift into the proceedings. Back in May, they served subpoenas not only on Swift herself but also on her law firm, Venable LLP. Less than two weeks later, those subpoenas were withdrawn, after Swift’s representatives and Lively’s camp denounced the move as harassment.
At the time, a spokesperson for Lively said: “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.”
Swift’s own spokesperson was even more blunt, accusing Baldoni’s team of using her name for publicity. “Given that her involvement was licensing a song for the film, which 19 other artists also did, this document subpoena is designed to use Taylor Swift’s name to draw public interest by creating tabloid clickbait instead of focusing on the facts of the case.”
That statement sums up much of the tension here: Swift believes she is being targeted not because she has relevant knowledge, but because her fame guarantees headlines.
The legal fight between Lively and Baldoni is itself a sprawling mess. At its core are Lively’s claims about conditions on the set of It Ends With Us, a romantic drama based on Colleen Hoover’s bestselling novel. Lively, who starred in the film, has alleged harassment and retaliation tied to her work with Baldoni, who both acted in and directed the project.
Baldoni, for his part, launched an aggressive $400 million countersuit not only against Lively but also against her husband, actor Ryan Reynolds, and even The New York Times. That case made headlines earlier this year but was dismissed by Judge Liman. Still, the judge allowed Baldoni’s attorneys to refile narrower claims, keeping the fight alive.
For months, each side has accused the other of media manipulation. Lively’s team argues Baldoni is weaponizing publicity to pressure her into a weaker legal position. Baldoni’s team counters that Lively is exaggerating claims and stalling the discovery process. Into that volatile mix, the mere mention of Taylor Swift’s name has acted like gasoline on a fire.
For Swift, the situation is both delicate and frustrating. On one hand, she has no desire to be accused of dodging legal obligations, especially given her image as someone who stands up for herself and others. On the other hand, being dragged into depositions about someone else’s workplace dispute threatens to consume time and energy that she could be devoting to her own music, business ventures, or philanthropic projects.
Her legal team has made it clear she is not a central figure. She did not produce, direct, or act in the film. She was not on set for the alleged incidents. Her contribution — licensing My Tears Ricochet — was one of many soundtrack deals. Yet because Lively confided in her, she now faces the possibility of being grilled under oath.
If it happens, it will likely be a narrow deposition focused on whether she was told anything specific about the alleged environment on set, and whether she shared those impressions with others. Still, given Swift’s cultural stature, even a limited deposition would make headlines around the world.
The next few weeks will be critical. Judge Liman must decide whether to allow Swift’s deposition and how to balance it against looming deadlines. If he approves it, Swift’s schedule will push her testimony into late October at the earliest, leaving little time for either side to parse her answers before discovery closes.
Meanwhile, both camps will continue filing letters, motions, and responses, each one a battle in the war for narrative control. To Lively’s team, Swift is a private citizen unfairly dragged into a fight that should have nothing to do with her. To Baldoni’s team, she is a potential witness with information that could make or break the credibility of Lively’s claims.
The trial itself is still months away, but the stage is already set for a courtroom showdown. And as much as Swift would prefer to remain on the sidelines, her name is now etched into the record of one of Hollywood’s most closely watched legal battles.
Whether she ultimately testifies or not, the fact that she has become a focal point underscores how celebrity, law, and media intersect in ways that can drag even the most peripheral figures into the spotlight.
For Swift fans, the hope is that this moment passes quickly and quietly. For the legal teams, it’s another skirmish in a high-stakes fight with millions of dollars and reputations on the line. And for the rest of us, it’s a reminder that in Hollywood, even a single song can carry consequences far beyond the recording studio.