Taylor Swift Set to Give Evidence in October After Bitter Fall-Out With Blake Lively Over Justin Baldoni Case

Taylor Swift may be called to give sworn evidence in the Blake Lively–Justin Baldoni legal battle.

The high-profile dispute, which began with Blake Lively's December 2024 complaints about conduct on the set of It Ends With Us, has produced a flurry of discovery disputes, dropped subpoenas and newly filed declarations.

Court orders have already compelled the production of text messages between Lively and Taylor Swift, and several reputable outlets confirm that a subpoena of Swift was earlier withdrawn, yet recent reports that Swift is set for a deposition in the week beginning 20 October remain largely reported by tabloids and secondary sources and have not been independently verified by most mainstream American newspapers.

The Procedural Record

A clear, documented turn in the litigation came when US District Judge Lewis J. Liman refused to quash the disclosure of messages between Blake Lively and Taylor Swift, ruling that communications tied to Lively's account of workplace conditions could be relevant to Justin Baldoni's defence.

That order and subsequent productions are a matter of public record and were reported by established entertainment outlets.

Earlier this year, Baldoni's legal team issued a subpoena to Swift; the move attracted immediate attention and pushback from Swift's representatives, who argued it was burdensome and sought publicity.

In May 2025, Baldoni withdrew that subpoena, a development covered by several outlets. The withdrawal did not end the court's interest in the content of messages exchanged between Lively and Swift, which the judge later deemed discoverable from Lively's custody.

The New Claim: Deposition

Reports have repeated that newly filed court papers indicate Swift has been asked to give sworn testimony during the week beginning 20 October, but only if Baldoni's legal team persuades a judge to extend a discovery deadline. Those accounts cite letters to the court requesting a short extension specifically to take Swift's deposition around that week.

However, many mainstream US outlets with earlier, verified coverage of the case have not independently confirmed that a judge has granted such an extension or that a deposition is definitively scheduled.

Legal commentators stress that discovery scheduling is fluid. Parties frequently seek targeted extensions for narrow purposes, for example, to accommodate a witness's professional commitments, and those requests do not guarantee testimony will occur. The difference between a proposed schedule and a court-ordered deposition is material and must be reflected in reporting.

Why Swift's Potential Deposition Matters

If Swift were to testify under oath, the practical significance would depend entirely on the substance of her testimony and any contemporaneous communications. Court orders to produce communications differ from compelling a witness to appear; producing messages may resolve many evidentiary questions without necessitating a live deposition.

Moreover, Swift's celebrity status raises separate legal and tactical issues: counsel must balance relevance against privacy burdens and potential prejudice; judges routinely weigh those factors before compelling testimony.

The litigation itself continues on several fronts: Lively's original complaint, Baldoni's counterclaims (some of which have been dismissed), and newly filed sworn declarations alleging further negative interactions with Baldoni.

Recent filings include a declaration from an unnamed individual alleging repeated negative interactions and verbal abuse — material that the parties say may be relevant to credibility and on-set conduct. The consolidated case remains slated for trial in March 2026, when evidence and testimony will be tested in open court.

This dispute is as much about process as it is about allegations: the next definitive public steps will come from court filings, orders and scheduled hearings, not social media headlines.