Taylor Swift has been asked to give evidence under oath in the federal lawsuit between Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni, according to newly filed court documents and media reports.
Court filings obtained by media outlets show that Baldoni’s legal team has sought to take Swift’s deposition during the week of Oct. 20–25, saying the timing is requested because of Swift’s “preexisting professional obligations.” The request is contingent on a judge granting a narrow extension of discovery deadlines to permit the testimony, the filings say.
The matter arises from Lively’s December 2024 lawsuit accusing Baldoni of sexually harassing her on the set of the film It Ends With Us, allegations Baldoni has denied. Baldoni and his company, Wayfarer Studios, countered with a defamation suit that a judge later dismissed. In June, U.S. District Judge Lewis J. Liman dismissed Baldoni’s amended complaint against Lively and others, finding key statements were made in privileged court filings and rejecting the defamation claims against The New York Times on similar grounds.
Baldoni’s lawyers have told the court they already possess text messages between Swift and Lively that relate to It Ends With Us and that they wish to question Swift about those communications. In a filing opposing a motion to set a firm discovery cutoff, Baldoni attorney Ellyn S. Garofalo wrote that the Wayfarer parties sought only “to take the deposition of Taylor Swift during the week of October 20–25 due to Ms. Swift’s preexisting professional obligations.” The filing says the deposition would follow the singer’s planned album release next month.
Lively’s legal team has moved for broader relief in recent filings. In a 30-page motion filed in federal court, Lively seeks attorney’s fees, treble damages and punitive damages against Wayfarer Studios and its executives, arguing that the company’s defamation suit was a retaliatory measure meant to punish her for reporting harassment. Her attorneys cited California Civil Code Section 47.1, which addresses retaliatory lawsuits in the harassment context, and asked the court to declare Lively the “prevailing defendant” entitled to recover fees.
Those papers also include allegations drawn from a sworn declaration filed Sept. 4 that an unnamed individual endured “repeated, negative interactions” with Baldoni and his associates. That person, whose name was redacted in the public filing, alleged verbal abuse and said Baldoni was “not permitted on set during the majority of production as a result of those experiences.” Lively’s lawyers said the individual had requested Baldoni not be involved in marketing or public relations efforts and suggested the person is likely to testify for Lively at trial.
The motion further recounts statements attributed to Wayfarer co-founder Steve Sarowitz in which he allegedly vowed to spend large sums to damage Lively’s credibility. The filing quotes a passage that characterizes Sarowitz as stating he would “protect the studio like Israel protected itself from Hamas” and makes reference to threats to ruin reputations; those assertions are presented in the filing as allegations and have not been independently verified in court.
The escalating filings come amid reports of a rift between Swift and Lively, who were once close friends and for whom Swift is godmother to one of Lively’s children. Media reports say Swift’s recent engagement announcement drew broad public congratulations from A-list friends but no public acknowledgement from Lively. Those outlets also reported that Swift has been slow to respond to Lively’s attempts at outreach; the parties have not publicly commented on their personal relationship in court filings.
Baldoni has filed multiple suits tied to the dispute, including a high-profile $250 million complaint against The New York Times over its reporting on the allegations; the judge dismissed that suit as part of his June ruling. Baldoni’s lawyers did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the newly reported deposition request and the additional sworn declaration cited by Lively’s team.
The immediate question for the court is whether to allow a narrow extension of discovery to permit Swift’s deposition in late October. If granted, the deposition would be scheduled after Swift’s next album release and would proceed under oath. A decision on the requested extension and whether Swift will be compelled to testify is expected to be addressed by Judge Liman in upcoming scheduling proceedings.