Taylor Swift has been subpoenaed in the escalating legal battle between her close friend Blake Lively, and Lively’s co-star and director, Justin Baldoni, drawing the pop superstar into a contentious lawsuit that her representatives say has little to do with her. The subpoena, reportedly issued by Baldoni’s legal team, names Swift as a potential witness in the case, which centers on allegations of sexual harassment, retaliation, and defamation related to the production of the film It Ends With Us.

Swift’s representatives sharply criticized the subpoena, calling it a transparent attempt to draw public interest by exploiting the singer’s global fame. “Taylor Swift never set foot on the set of this movie, she was not involved in any casting or creative decisions, she did not score the film, she never saw an edit or made any notes on the film, she did not even see ‘It Ends With Us’ until weeks after its public release, and was traveling around the globe during 2023 and 2024 headlining the biggest tour in history,” a spokesperson for Swift told Billboard.

The representative added that Swift’s only connection to the film was licensing her song “My Tears Ricochet” for the soundtrack, a role she shared with 19 other artists who similarly contributed tracks. “Given that her involvement was licensing a song for the film, which 19 other artists also did, this document subpoena is designed to use Taylor Swift’s name to draw public interest by creating tabloid clickbait instead of focusing on the facts of the case,” the spokesperson said.

The underlying litigation dates back to December, when Lively filed a lawsuit accusing Baldoni of sexual harassment on the set of It Ends With Us and of launching a retaliatory smear campaign after she complained about his behavior. In response, Baldoni countersued for defamation in January, claiming that Lively had leveraged her close friendship with a “megacelebrity friend,” presumed to be Swift, to damage his career.

Baldoni’s legal filings include text messages referencing a meeting allegedly attended by “Ryan and Taylor,” likely referring to Swift and Lively’s husband, actor Ryan Reynolds. One message reportedly sent by Lively described Swift and Reynolds as her “most trusted partners,” comparing them to the “dragons” from the popular television show Game of Thrones. “The message could not have been clearer,” Baldoni’s attorneys wrote. “Baldoni was not just dealing with Lively. He was also facing Lively’s ‘dragons,’ two of the most influential and wealthy celebrities in the world, who were not afraid to make things very difficult for him.”

The inclusion of Swift in the case could complicate the proceedings, potentially drawing in other high-profile figures and intensifying the public spotlight on what has already become a highly charged legal battle. Swift’s representatives have not indicated whether the singer plans to challenge the subpoena, but the tone of their public response suggests that a legal pushback may be forthcoming.

Swift’s legal team will likely pursue several strategies to challenge the subpoena and limit her involvement in the case. One option is to file a motion to quash the subpoena, arguing that it is overly broad, burdensome, and intended to harass rather than to genuinely seek relevant evidence. Such motions often emphasize that the subpoenaed party has no direct knowledge of the facts at issue, which Swift’s representatives have already indicated in their public statements.

Another possible approach is to seek a protective order, which would limit the scope of any potential deposition or document production, ensuring that only directly relevant information is disclosed. Swift’s attorneys might argue that her personal communications and professional records are not relevant to the core claims in the Lively-Baldoni dispute, especially if her involvement was limited to licensing a single song.

Swift’s team could also assert a First Amendment defense, arguing that compelling her to testify or produce documents solely because of her association with Lively violates her rights to free association and free speech. Courts have occasionally recognized that compelling testimony from high-profile individuals, particularly when their connection to the case is tenuous, can chill free expression and association.

Additionally, Swift’s lawyers may attempt to negotiate with Baldoni’s legal team to resolve the issue without formal court intervention, potentially agreeing to provide a narrowly tailored affidavit or statement that clarifies her limited involvement, thereby avoiding a full-scale deposition.