After Justin Baldoni’s attorney said that Taylor Swift would sit for a deposition in the simmering legal battle between him and his It Ends With Us co-star Blake Lively, the pop star has fired back.

Swift’s lawyer asserted on Friday that she has “no material role” in the case and did not agree to be deposed, contradicting what Baldoni’s team claimed.

The matter came to a head when Baldoni’s attorneys claimed in filings that Swift had agreed to be deposed but needed to delay the appearance until October due to professional obligations. That assertion clashed directly with a sharply worded letter from Swift’s lawyer, Doug Baldridge. He told the court that Swift “did not agree to a deposition” and had only recently learned of the renewed request. His statement was unequivocal: Swift would testify only if compelled by court order, and even then, she would do so within a narrow window of availability. The blunt phrasing of that ultimatum grabbed headlines, framing the superstar not as a willing participant but as a reluctant figure resisting the legal pull.

The judge overseeing the dispute, U.S. District Judge Lewis J. Liman, ultimately sided with Swift’s position, at least for now. He denied Baldoni’s motion to extend the discovery deadline in order to depose her, citing a lack of diligence. The court noted that Baldoni’s lawyers had not properly re-served the subpoena in time and had not demonstrated that Swift’s testimony was essential. For Swift, it was a temporary reprieve. She avoided the uncomfortable prospect of being grilled under oath about private communications with her close friend. But the ruling did not entirely close the door — if circumstances change, the court could revisit the issue.

Baldoni’s attorney said on Thursday that she requested an agreement to take Swift’s deposition in late October due to the singer’s “preexisting professional obligations”.

Lively’s attorney wants the judge to deny the deadline extension and accused Baldoni of seeking to bring Swift into litigation “to generate a media spectacle in this matter”.

The singer would only provide a deposition in the case if Baldoni’s legal team can convince US District Judge Lewis Liman to extend a deadline for her to provide testimony.

It’s the latest twist in the high-profile legal saga between Lively and Baldoni.

Duelling lawsuits between the It Ends With Us stars have raged in New York federal court following the awkward promotional campaign for their 2024 film that Baldoni also produced and directed.

Lively sued Baldoni and his studio in New York court last year alleging she was sexually harassed on set and that he led a campaign to “destroy” her reputation.

Baldoni counter-sued the Gossip Girl star, but his defamation lawsuit was dismissed in June.

In legal documents obtained by the BBC’s US media partner CBS, the Jane the Virgin actor’s attorney on Thursday accused Lively of misleadingly implying that Baldoni and his Wayfarer Studios requested “a blanket thirty-day extension of the discovery cut-off date”.

“In fact, Wayfarer Parties requested an agreement solely to take the deposition of Taylor Swift during the week of October 20-25 due to Ms. Swift’s preexisting professional obligations,” his attorney Ellyn S. Garofalo said.

Garofalo asked the court to modify its scheduling order “for the sole purpose of accommodating third-party witness Taylor Swift”, whom she says agreed to appear for a deposition but would not be able to do so before 20 October.

Swift is due to release her 12th studio album, The Life of a Showgirl, on 3 October, announcing the drop last month on her fiancé Travis Kelce’s podcast.

In response, Lively’s attorney Michael J Gottlieb on Friday sent a letter to Judge Liman asking the judge to deny Baldoni and his co-defendants’ request for a deadline extension.

Gottlieb said Baldoni’s team “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),” Gottlieb wrote.

Gottlieb added Baldoni’s team has “not come close to establishing good cause” for their requested extension.

He said Baldoni’s team did not contact Swift’s lawyer with details about the deposition until earlier this week and accused the defendants of an “astounding” lack of diligence, as well as disrespect to Swift’s privacy and schedule.

In a separate filing on Friday, Swift’s lawyer J Douglas Baldridge wrote to the judge saying “since the inception of this matter we have consistently maintained that my client has no material role in this action”.

He added that Swift did not agree to a desposition but would comply “if she is forced into a deposition”. He noted that they first heard about the depositioon three days prior and that she would comply “if she is forced into a deposition” by the court.

However, he reasserted that she can only be deposed during the week of 20 October because that is the only time her schedule can accommodate the time required.

In May, Baldoni’s lawyers tried to obtain messages between Lively and the singer directly from Swift by sending subpoenas to the Grammy Award winner and her legal team.

But the subpoenas were dropped after Swift’s legal team objected that they amounted to an “unwarranted fishing expedition”.

Lively’s team applied to prevent Baldoni obtaining the messages, arguing they were irrelevant.

In June, the judge ruled that messages between Lively and Swift can be handed over to Mr Baldoni, saying that communications between the friends about the environment on the It Ends With Us film set are relevant to the case.

The glittering world of music, film, and celebrity is no stranger to legal drama, but few stories have caught the public’s imagination quite like the standoff involving Taylor Swift, Blake Lively, and Justin Baldoni. What began as a dispute over workplace conduct on the set of It Ends With Us has spiraled into a high-stakes courtroom battle — one that unexpectedly placed Swift at its center. The pop icon, never far from the spotlight, issued a striking ultimatum through her legal team: she will only testify if the court forces her to. The statement has fueled speculation, ignited debate, and underscored the complicated way stars can be drawn into battles that aren’t their own.

At the root of the saga is Blake Lively’s lawsuit against her co-star and director, Justin Baldoni. Lively’s complaint alleged sexual harassment and retaliation during the production of It Ends With Us, the film adaptation of Colleen Hoover’s bestselling novel. Baldoni, in turn, filed counterclaims, accusing Lively and her allies of defamation and extortion. What might have remained a bitter dispute between two Hollywood power players quickly drew in another name with global recognition — Taylor Swift. Though her only direct connection to the project was the licensing of her song “My Tears Ricochet” for the film’s soundtrack, her name appeared in subpoenas, depositions, and headlines.

Baldoni’s legal team argued that Lively had invoked Swift’s friendship and influence in behind-the-scenes discussions about the movie. They suggested that Swift, along with Lively’s husband Ryan Reynolds, attended a private meeting where creative disagreements about the script were discussed. To them, this made Swift a potential witness. The mere mention of her name in legal filings sent shockwaves through entertainment media, transforming the case into something far larger than a dispute over one film. Swift’s reputation for careful control of her image, and her longstanding friendship with Lively, only heightened interest.

Swift’s team, however, was quick to push back. In public statements and court documents, her representatives emphasized that she had no creative involvement in It Ends With Us. They insisted she was not a producer, did not step foot on the set, and had nothing to do with casting, directing, or editing. She had, they said, watched the movie only after its public release, like millions of fans. Her only link was the use of a song she had already written and recorded years earlier. To Swift’s camp, the subpoena was less about uncovering truth and more about dragging her into a battle where she had no place.

Observers were quick to interpret the legal maneuvering as part strategy, part spectacle. Some saw Baldoni’s push to depose Swift as a tactical gambit designed to stretch out discovery, gather leverage, or perhaps gain publicity by attaching his case to one of the most famous names in the world. Others argued that Swift’s presence at the disputed meeting, however informal, made her fair game as a potential witness. Legal experts pointed out that high-profile third-party depositions are not uncommon in major civil litigation, though they often generate more headlines than substantive breakthroughs.

For Swift herself, the situation highlights the precariousness of celebrity in an age where fame can pull a person into conflicts far outside their control. Despite her insistence that she had no creative role in It Ends With Us, her friendship with Lively made her a convenient target for Baldoni’s lawyers. Her decision to stand firm — refusing to testify unless forced — reflects not only legal strategy but also a desire to set boundaries. In an industry where stars are often pressured to accommodate demands, Swift’s refusal resonates as an assertion of autonomy.

The larger trial, scheduled for March 2026, will likely bring further twists. Both Lively and Baldoni face reputational stakes that could shape their careers for years to come. The inclusion of Swift, however peripheral, adds a layer of spectacle that guarantees ongoing public fascination. Whether she ultimately takes the stand remains uncertain, but her name alone ensures the proceedings will attract global attention.

What is clear is that this controversy has exposed the tangled web of Hollywood relationships, business deals, and personal alliances. A friendship between two stars, a song license, and a single meeting at a private home have all been magnified under the unforgiving lens of litigation. Swift’s ultimatum has become a symbolic moment in the saga — a declaration that she will not volunteer herself for someone else’s war. It speaks to the larger issue of how much control celebrities can exercise over their narratives when legal systems demand their participation.

In the end, the case is less about Swift than about the power struggles unfolding between Lively and Baldoni. But her involvement, however reluctant, illustrates how celebrity operates as both shield and magnet. Even when she seeks distance, her name draws attention, controversy, and legal scrutiny. By stating that she will only testify if forced, Swift has set a boundary — one that reinforces her determination to choose her battles. Whether the court respects that line in the months ahead will shape not only this case but also the ongoing conversation about how far the reach of fame extends in the courtroom.