Court rejects protective order as legal tensions rise, with Swift’s name caught in crossfire of harassment and defamation claims linked to film production
A federal judge has denied Blake Lively’s request to block Justin Baldoni from accessing her communications with close friend Taylor Swift in the ongoing It Ends With Us legal battle—escalating a complex case intertwining Hollywood stars, defamation claims, and accusations of harassment behind the scenes of the upcoming film.
Judge Lewis J. Liman rejected Lively’s motion for a protective order on June 18, a ruling that also denied a cross-motion filed by Baldoni and his media company, Wayfarer Studios, seeking additional documentation related to the film’s production.
The legal clash centers on whether Lively’s private messages with Swift—who is not involved in the film’s production beyond licensing her song My Tears Ricochet—can be considered relevant evidence. Baldoni’s team insists the records may shed light on Lively’s claims of harassment and retaliation during filming, as well as broader allegations against Wayfarer.
Lively’s legal representatives, however, argue the pursuit of Swift’s texts is more about publicity than justice.
“The Court’s protective order ruling rests on the Wayfarer Parties’ admission that they received nothing from Taylor Swift, which is exactly the opposite of what their ‘insider’ claimed two weeks ago,” a spokesperson for Lively said in a statement to PEOPLE.
The statement also condemned Baldoni’s repeated attempts to pull Swift into the case, citing internal documents that refer to the singer as a “bully” and strategize how to influence her massive fan base.
“From day one,” the representative continued, “this has been nothing more than a distraction from the serious sexual harassment and retaliation accusations he and the Wayfarer parties are facing.”
Judge Liman acknowledged Lively’s concerns in his written opinion, citing her argument that the opposing side is using discovery requests to support a “public relations narrative” rather than seeking legitimate legal evidence. Still, he found the request for Swift communications to be “reasonably tailored” to the scope of the case, particularly given Lively’s prior acknowledgment that Swift was aware of on-set issues.
This decision follows a series of dramatic legal developments. Earlier this year, Baldoni’s $400 million countersuit against Lively, Ryan Reynolds, their publicist Leslie Sloane, and The New York Times was dismissed. The lawsuit alleged defamation stemming from an article accusing Baldoni and his team of engineering a smear campaign against Lively.
Meanwhile, the initial subpoena issued to Taylor Swift was quietly withdrawn, but Baldoni’s attorneys have continued pushing for access to related communications.
In her June 13 motion, Lively argued that Baldoni’s team is “refusing to produce” documents they previously claimed to have secured in exchange for withdrawing Swift’s subpoena. This selective transparency, her team alleges, undermines fair legal discovery.
Judge Liman dismissed both the protective order and Baldoni’s counter-request to compel further documents. His reasoning: While Lively has indicated Swift was aware of discussions regarding the film’s environment, there’s still insufficient cause to grant full access—or total protection—at this stage.
The implications are high for all involved, especially media heiress Shari Redstone, whose plan to sell Paramount to Skydance hinges in part on the resolution of this legal battle.
As for Swift, who has remained silent throughout the proceedings, the court’s decision leaves the door open—however narrowly—for further entanglement in the suit.
With no settlement yet in sight and allegations intensifying, the It Ends With Us lawsuit continues to blur the lines between Hollywood storytelling and real-world drama.
