Blake Lively Loses Bid to Keep Taylor Swift Texts Private

Max Sterling, 6/19/2025Blake Lively's attempt to keep her texts with Taylor Swift private was denied in court, exposing their exchanges related to the troubled film "It Ends With Us." As legal battles intensify, Swift's unexpected involvement raises eyebrows, while Baldoni's $400 million countersuit gets tossed out, adding to the drama.

In a ruling that's got entertainment insiders buzzing, Judge Lewis J. Liman shot down Lively's protective order request on Wednesday. The decision's thrown yet another wrench into the increasingly complicated lawsuit surrounding "It Ends With Us" — y'know, that troubled production that's been making headlines since last fall's initial delays.

The whole mess reads like a script that's gone through too many rewrites. Baldoni's legal team initially subpoenaed Swift (talk about shooting for the stars), then backpedaled faster than a studio exec after a box office bomb. But they're still dead-set on getting their hands on those Swift-Lively text exchanges. Because apparently, that's where all the juicy stuff lives.

"Baldoni's obsession with dragging Taylor Swift into this dates back to August 2024," Lively's rep fired back — and honestly, who can blame them for being annoyed? The team's pointing fingers at what they're calling a calculated attempt to "exploit Ms Swift's popularity." There's even this wild "Scenario Planning" document floating around that supposedly tagged Swift as a "bully." (Really? In 2025, we're still playing that card?)

Judge Liman's ruling cuts through the drama with all the precision of a veteran editor in the cutting room. "Given that Lively has represented that Swift had knowledge of complaints or discussions about the working environment on the film, among other issues, the requests for messages with Swift regarding the film and this action are reasonably tailored," he wrote. Translation: Those texts might actually matter.

Here's the kicker — Swift's only real connection to this whole circus was lending "My Tears Ricochet" to the soundtrack. Yet somehow she's become as central to the story as an uncredited producer. That's just the power of Swift in 2025 — even her text messages can steal the show.

Meanwhile, Baldoni's ambitious $400 million countersuit against Lively, Ryan Reynolds, their publicist Leslie Sloane, and The New York Times just got tossed out like yesterday's trade papers. That particular legal blockbuster was sparked by a Times piece suggesting Baldoni and company had orchestrated some kind of smear campaign against Lively. (Spoiler alert: The judge wasn't buying it.)

The whole situation's starting to feel less like a straightforward legal battle and more like one of those prestige streaming dramas where every episode reveals another layer of complexity. Between the dismissed countersuits, denied protective orders, and Swift's unexpected supporting role, this behind-the-scenes drama's got more twists than a Christopher Nolan screenplay.

Perhaps the real irony here is that while everyone's fighting over text messages and planning documents, "It Ends With Us" still hasn't seen the light of day. At this rate, the legal paperwork might end up being longer than the actual script — and probably more entertaining, too.

Hollywood's latest legal drama isn't playing out on the silver screen — it's unfolding in a Manhattan courtroom, where Blake Lively's attempt to keep her private messages with Taylor Swift under wraps just hit an unexpected plot twist.In a ruling that's got entertainment insiders buzzing, Judge Lewis J. Liman shot down Lively's protective order request on Wednesday. The decision's thrown yet another wrench into the increasingly complicated lawsuit surrounding "It Ends With Us" — y'know, that troubled production that's been making headlines since last fall's initial delays.The whole mess reads like a script that's gone through too many rewrites. Baldoni's legal team initially subpoenaed Swift (talk about shooting for the stars), then backpedaled faster than a studio exec after a box office bomb. But they're still dead-set on getting their hands on those Swift-Lively text exchanges. Because apparently, that's where all the juicy stuff lives."Baldoni's obsession with dragging Taylor Swift into this dates back to August 2024," Lively's rep fired back — and honestly, who can blame them for being annoyed? The team's pointing fingers at what they're calling a calculated attempt to "exploit Ms Swift's popularity." There's even this wild "Scenario Planning" document floating around that supposedly tagged Swift as a "bully." (Really? In 2025, we're still playing that card?)Judge Liman's ruling cuts through the drama with all the precision of a veteran editor in the cutting room. "Given that Lively has represented that Swift had knowledge of complaints or discussions about the working environment on the film, among other issues, the requests for messages with Swift regarding the film and this action are reasonably tailored," he wrote. Translation: Those texts might actually matter.Here's the kicker — Swift's only real connection to this whole circus was lending "My Tears Ricochet" to the soundtrack. Yet somehow she's become as central to the story as an uncredited producer. That's just the power of Swift in 2025 — even her text messages can steal the show.Meanwhile, Baldoni's ambitious $400 million countersuit against Lively, Ryan Reynolds, their publicist Leslie Sloane, and The New York Times just got tossed out like yesterday's trade papers. That particular legal blockbuster was sparked by a Times piece suggesting Baldoni and company had orchestrated some kind of smear campaign against Lively. (Spoiler alert: The judge wasn't buying it.)The whole situation's starting to feel less like a straightforward legal battle and more like one of those prestige streaming dramas where every episode reveals another layer of complexity. Between the dismissed countersuits, denied protective orders, and Swift's unexpected supporting role, this behind-the-scenes drama's got more twists than a Christopher Nolan screenplay.Perhaps the real irony here is that while everyone's fighting over text messages and planning documents, "It Ends With Us" still hasn't seen the light of day. At this rate, the legal paperwork might end up being longer than the actual script — and probably more entertaining, too.