Somehow, someway, Taylor Swift is still being dragged into the It Ends With Us drama. Justin Baldon’s legal team has already been admonished for using Swift’s name to “promote public scandal” around the dueling lawsuits. But in court filings on Thursday, Justin Baldoni’s team claimed that the pop star had agreed to be deposed in the case. Blake Lively’s legal team doesn’t believe it, and even if it was true, they argue that this is just an underhanded tactic to stall the proceedings.
Here’s the story, as we understand it based on reporting from Variety and Deadline. Both sides are wrapping up discovery (meaning, the collection of evidence) ahead of the trial, which is scheduled for spring 2026. Lively has already been deposed, but Baldoni and his Wayfarer Studios partners have not. Lively’s team requested an extension, claiming that the Wayfarer side has been dragging their feet handing over requested documents. Team Baldoni opposed Lively’s request for an extension while requesting their own—which is only necessary, they claim, because Taylor Swift agreed to deposition and they have to work around her professional obligations. Of course, it’s a matter of public record that Swift has an album coming out on October 3, so Team Baldoni says they can’t depose her until October 20.
There are reasons to doubt that Swift would deign to be involved in the case. First and foremost, she has strongly denied having anything to do with It Ends With Us and its attendant conflict. (Baldoni has claimed Swift was present at a meeting where Lively pressured him into accepting her It Ends With Us script changes.) The judge ruled that Lively’s texts with Swift could be part of the case, but only insofar as whatever Lively communicated to her friend about the harassment she allegedly faced on set. A filing from Baldoni’s team amounting to little more than tabloid gossip was struck from the record, and Team Baldoni dropped their subpoena for Swift. So at this point, it’s not clear what special relevancy Swift would have to this case above any other friend Lively might have vented to, beyond the fact that Swift is no doubt the most famous and powerful one.
There’s a chance Baldoni’s team did manage to make a deal to bring Swift in. (Perhaps they agreed that if she would sit for deposition they’d stop constantly name-dropping her, though that’s not going well so far.) But in their letter today, Team Lively says the Wayfarer side has offered no proof Swift actually agreed. “Even if one were to take the Wayfarer Defendants’ representation at face value, they have not come close to establishing good cause for their requested relief,” the letter reads. “The Wayfarer Defendants assert that Ms. Swift is not available for a deposition until October 20, 2025, yet are silent about their efforts (if any) to schedule this deposition during the existing discovery period. That is likely because, as explained in the attached correspondence between the parties, see Exhibit A, the Wayfarer Defendants do not appear to have contacted Ms. Swift’s counsel regarding a date or location about the deposition until earlier this week.”
The letter continues, “In this respect, the Wayfarer Defendants’ lack of diligence, and disrespect for Ms. Swift’s privacy and schedule, is astounding. Discovery has been ongoing for more than six months, and Ms. Swift is someone whose calendar should be presumed to be packed with professional obligations for months in advance. At any point over the past six months, the Wayfarer Defendants could have noticed a deposition, served a subpoena, and negotiated an agreeable time and place for this deposition. But they did not.”
In that light, this supposed It Ends With Us deposition looks more like a ploy to buy some more time. Or, as Lively’s lawyers argue, another trick “to fuel their relentless media strategy.” The judge presiding over the case (who, let’s not forget, happens to be the brother of filmmaker Doug Liman—the whole thing is so Hollywood) has not yet weighed in on either side of the issue. But even though Baldoni’s lawyers were previously censured for trying to litigate in the press, it seems they’ve still found ways to make headlines.
