Taylor Swift deposition off limits to Justin Baldoni in Blake Lively lawsuit after judge rules he took too long

A judge has denied Justin Baldoni’s last-minute bid to depose Taylor Swift in an upcoming trial over Blake Lively’s claims she was sexually harassed during the filming of It Ends With Us.

On Friday (September 12), U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman ruled that Baldoni and his co-defendants at Wayfarer Studios waited too long to seek Swift’s deposition and missed their chance.

The judge did, however, grant a 10-day extension for Lively to take the depositions of Baldoni and two others. He said the defendants were too slow in producing the requested documents, so Lively and her lawyers deserved the extra time to prepare. In the case of Swift, the judge said Baldoni and Wayfarer failed to show “good cause” to justify the same response.

“The only justification [Baldoni and the Wayfarer parties] have provided for the extension is their assertion that Swift’s preexisting professional obligations now prevent her from appearing for a deposition prior to October 20, 2025,” Judge Liman wrote. “Importantly, however, the Wayfarer parties have provided no discussion of when they began attempting to schedule the deposition. Discovery has been ongoing in this case for approximately six months.”

The judge noted that Baldoni previously requested Swift’s deposition in May 2025 before ultimately withdrawing that subpoena. “They have offered no evidence that they have served a renewed subpoena on Swift. Thus, at most, the Wayfarer parties have demonstrated that scheduling the deposition now presents logistical difficulties; that does not answer the question of why the deposition could not have been conducted earlier,” he wrote. “Having failed to demonstrate appropriate diligence, the requested extension is denied.”

It came after Baldoni’s lawyer, Ellyn S. Garofalo, claimed in a letter to the court filed on Thursday (September 11) that Swift had “agreed” to appear for deposition but was unable to do so before October 20. The letter requested an extension of the September 30 discovery deadline to accommodate Swift’s schedule.

On Friday (September 12), Swift’s lawyer refuted these claims. “As counsel for the parties know, since the inception of this matter, we have consistently maintained that my client has no material role in this action,” Swift’s lawyer J. Douglas Baldridge wrote in a letter to the judge filed in Manhattan federal court.

He added that Swift “did not agree to a deposition,” but if she was “forced,” she had informed Baldoni’s camp that her schedule was too busy to accommodate it before October 20.

Baldridge didn’t explain what the scheduling conflict was, but Swift is currently preparing to release her new album, ‘The Life of a Showgirl’, on October 3. She also recently got engaged to American footballer Travis Kelce.

The legal battle between the two kicked off last December, when Lively filed a sexual harassment and retaliation complaint with the California Civil Rights Department against Baldoni. In the filing, she accused the director of “inappropriate and unwelcome behaviour” and claimed he was trying to “destroy” her reputation.

Baldoni has denied all accusations and countersued on January 16, including Lively’s husband Ryan Reynolds and publicist Leslie Sloane in the suit. He attempted to sue them for $400million (£295million) and claims that the actress tried to extort him. In the aftermath of Lively’s suit, Baldoni was dropped by his talent agency William Morris Endeavor (WME) and also had a women’s solidarity award rescinded.

Swift became involved in the fight when Baldoni filed a duelling defamation lawsuit against Lively. It named Swift – who is a friend of Lively’s – as a witness and alleged that the pop star was present for discussions between Lively and Baldoni about a scene at the beginning of the film.

It claimed that Lively invited Baldoni to her New York City residence to talk over possible script changes, and Baldoni was left surprised to see that Swift and Lively’s husband Ryan Reynolds were there too. He alleges that Swift and Reynolds approved of Lively’s suggested version of the scene in question, pressuring him into accepting the revisions.

The original filing also made a nod to Swift and Reynolds, including text messages where Lively appears to refer to the two as her “dragons”: “If you ever get around to watching Game Of Thrones, you’ll appreciate that I’m Khaleesi, and like her, I happen to have a few dragons. For better of worse, but usually better. Because my dragons also protect those I fight for.”

In a separate response letter filed Friday, before the judge’s ruling, one of Lively’s lawyers blasted Baldoni’s camp for an “astounding” lack of respect for “Swift’s privacy and schedule.” The lawyer urged the court to deny Baldoni’s request for the late deposition.

“The Wayfarer defendants have repeatedly sought to bring Ms. Swift into this litigation to fuel their relentless media strategy. In this latest effort, the Wayfarer defendants assert – though, notably, without evidence – that Ms. Swift has supposedly ‘agreed’ to sit for a deposition sometime between October 20-25, some three weeks after the close of fact discovery in this matter,” Lively’s lawyer Michael J. Gottlieb wrote in his opposition.

“Ms. Swift is someone whose calendar should be presumed to be packed with professional obligations for months in advance,” he continued. “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. Instead, the Wayfarer Defendants previously noticed Ms. Swift’s deposition in May 2025, accompanied by a barrage of press stories covering the same, only to withdraw that subpoena to much fanfare.”

Gottlieb claimed Baldoni and Wayfarer did “not even attempt to explain their need for [Swift’s] deposition.” He further accused them of trying “to generate a media spectacle in this matter.”

In May, Swift’s legal team called for the subpoena from Baldoni to be thrown out, outlining how neither the pop star nor her team had anything to do with the issues raised in the lawsuit.