Blake Lively allegedly asked Taylor Swift to delete their text messages in ongoing legal battle with Justin Baldoni, Entertainment News
Blake Lively allegedly asked Taylor Swift to delete their text messages as part of her ongoing legal battle with actor-director Justin Baldoni.
The actress, 37, has been locked in a legal battle for months with 41-year-old Justin after accusing him of harassment on the set of their film It Ends With Us, and her relationship with Taylor became entangled in the lawsuit earlier this year.
According to newly filed court documents revealed by Page Six, lawyers representing Justin and his production company, Wayfarer Studios, cite an anonymous source "who is highly likely to have reliable information", alleging that Blake made the text deletion request to Taylor, 35 — though the exact timing of the apparent conversation was not disclosed.
According to the filing, Justin's legal team further alleged Blake's lead attorney, Michael Gottlieb, had approached Taylor's law firm, Venable, to request a "statement of support" from the pop star.
The court document claims the request carried an implied threat: "If Ms Swift refused to do so, private text messages of a personal nature in Ms Lively's possession would be released."
Justin's lawyers said a representative for Taylor responded to the alleged threat in a written communication sent directly to Michael.
"It is those communications that the Wayfarer parties seek to obtain by way of subpoena," the filing reads, referencing an ongoing legal battle over access to Venable's internal correspondence.
The documents allege the communications "would evidence an attempt to intimidate and coerce a percipient witness in this litigation".
Taylor has not been accused of any wrongdoing, but she has been subpoenaed as a potential witness in the case.
Michael responded to the allegations by calling them "categorically false" and "completely untethered from reality" in a statement to Page Six, adding he "unequivocally" denied them.
Taylor's publicist also stated the Grammy winner "was not involved" in the production of the film at the centre of the dispute between Justin and Blake, and had been "travelling around the globe during 2023 and 2024 headlining the biggest tour in history".
Blake and Taylor have been close friends since 2015.
In January, Justin filed a countersuit against Blake, accusing her of defamation and extortion.
In the countersuit, he alleged Blake had invoked Taylor and her husband, Ryan Reynolds, as protectors in creative disputes.
"The message could not have been clearer," Justin's lawyers wrote in the filing.
They added: "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."
[[nid:714649]]
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Straits Times
an hour ago
- Straits Times
Judge dismisses Justin Baldoni's $400 million defamation lawsuit against Blake Lively
Blake Lively arrives for the Saturday Night Live 50: The Anniversary Special at 30 Rockefeller Plaza in New York City, U.S., February 16, 2025. REUTERS/Caitlin Ochs/File Photo NEW YORK - A U.S. judge on Monday dismissed actor Justin Baldoni's $400 million defamation lawsuit against actress Blake Lively, who had accused Baldoni of sexually harassing her while filming the 2024 movie "It Ends With Us." Baldoni had accused Lively, her husband Ryan Reynolds, their publicist, the New York Times and others of orchestrating a smear campaign to extort him. He accused Lively of trying to "hijack" the movie, whose themes included domestic violence, and then blame him when her "disastrous" promotional approach prompted an online backlash against her. "It Ends With Us" garnered mixed reviews, but grossed more than $351 million worldwide, according to Box Office Mojo. REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
CNA
5 days ago
- CNA
Pop singer Jessie J says she has been diagnosed with early breast cancer
The English pop singer Jessie J says she has been diagnosed with breast cancer and will undergo surgery after her performance at the London music festival Capital's Summertime Ball next weekend. Jessie J, 37, shared the news in an Instagram video on Wednesday (Jun 4). 'I was diagnosed with early breast cancer,' she said in the clip. 'Cancer sucks in any form, but I'm holding onto the word 'early'." 'It's a very dramatic way to get a boob job. I am going to disappear for a bit after Summertime Ball to have my surgery, and I will come back with massive (expletive) and more music.' The annual Summertime Ball will be held at Wembley Stadium on Sunday, Jun 15. She told her social media audience that she felt compelled to share her diagnosis. 'I just wanted to be open and share it,' she said. 'One, because, selfishly, I do not talk about it enough. I'm not processing it because I'm working so hard. I also know how much sharing in the past has helped me with other people giving me their love and support and also their own stories. I'm an open book. It breaks my heart that so many people are going through so much similar and worse – that's the bit that kills me.' The Grammy-nominated Jessie J has long been celebrated for her robust soprano and R&B-informed pop hits, like the 2014 collaboration with Nicki Minaj and Ariana Grande, Bang Bang, and 2011's Domino. She has released five albums across her career, most recently, 2018's Christmas album, This Christmas Day. She has been releasing new music in 2025, including the singles Living My Best Life and No Secrets. A new album is expected later this year. She has a son, Sky Safir Cornish Colman, born in 2023.
Business Times
5 days ago
- Business Times
Taylor Swift's catalogue win is a masterclass in business
TAYLOR Swift emerged triumphant after a years-long battle over the rights to her earlier music on Friday (May 30). She now has complete control from the songs to packaging to distribution – and no corporate edicts to deal with. That would be enough cause for celebration, but reports say that she bought her catalogue for more than US$300 million. For a Grammy award-winning, multi-platinum international superstar worth US$1.4 billion, that's pretty much a steal. This should not be viewed as just a massive financial and artistic win for her. Hopefully, it signals a paradigm shift for other musicians, especially younger ones, and inspires more of them to be business-savvy in an industry that has long banked on them not paying attention to the fine print of fame. The deck is often stacked against artistes. Swift, despite all her success, was no different. In late June 2019, over seven months after she departed Big Machine Records for Republic Records/Universal Music Group, Big Machine was sold to music executive Scooter Braun's Ithaca Holdings. A year and a half later, Braun sold the Big Machine Label Group (including Swift's first six albums) to private equity firm Shamrock Holdings for about US$300 million. In the first instance, Swift was vocal about the difficult terms she faced to acquire her album masters (record one new album for each previous one to be returned); and in the latter, she was not allowed to bid for them. Veteran musicians have made headlines in recent years by selling off the rights to catalogues for reportedly hundreds of millions of dollars. These include Paul Simon's US$250 million songwriting deal; Bob Dylan's payday of more than US$300 million for his songwriting, plus a separate estimated US$150 million to US$200 million for his masters; and Bruce Springsteen's US$550 million for his songs and masters. Then there's Queen, who set a record for their US$1.2 billion songs and masters acquisition by Sony. Cashing in early For various reasons, younger hitmakers such as Future, Justin Bieber and Katy Perry have also sold personal stakes in their publishing and masters for tens and hundreds of millions of dollars, cashing in early. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up The main difference between those musicians and Swift is that they benefited from the sales of their master recordings – for some, 50 or 60 years' worth – whereas Swift got nothing from the robust sale of hers. Moving forward, the 35-year-old will profit well. This is very rare at her age for a few reasons. For one, despite the 1976 Copyright Revision Act, which allows artistes to apply to obtain their master recordings 35 years after their commercial release – starting with music released in 1978 – major record labels are reluctant to relinquish valuable music assets. They will try to wrangle better deals with artistes to keep a hold of coveted catalogue titles, even though musicians would do better owning them outright. One of the most tumultuous public battles involved the late Prince, who fought for years to get his masters back – only to secure them in his mid-50s, two years before his death. Then there's the fact that many artistes, whether just inexperienced or desperate to make it big, sign notoriously inequitable deals. In the 1960s, The Beatles signed a string of them for management, merchandising and even music publishing for the John Lennon/Paul McCartney songs. The latter is a mistake that McCartney spent six decades trying to undo before reaching a settlement with the then-named Sony/ATV (now Sony Music Publishing) in 2017. (George Harrison wisely created his own publishing company, Harrisongs, in 1964, whose catalogue includes the mega hit Here Comes The Sun.) Even when artistes become wise to being fleeced, the music business finds new ways to win. At the dawn of the streaming era, labels initially resisted compensating artistes for digital music, streamers paid out low royalties and the three major labels (Sony, UMG and Warner Music) bought shares in Spotify. Age of streaming Additionally, 360 deals have become more prominent in the age of streaming. These agreements involve the label taking a percentage of album and concert sales, merchandising, sponsorships and other residual income to compensate for decreased revenue from CDs, vinyl and cassettes. It's a way for labels to guarantee their recoupment after investing resources in musicians (particularly new ones who haven't yet proven their star power). But these increased cuts into artistes' streams of income are a heavy burden for less established musicians to bear. To have any chance of avoiding the pitfalls that come with the industry, it's not enough to be talented in a recording studio or on stage. More than ever, it's necessary for an artiste to wear the management hat too. Of course, newcomers don't have the kind of clout and capital that many famous artistes, such as Swift, have garnered to help them go up against the industry. We can't overlook the fact that she raked in a fortune from her nearly two-year-long Eras world tour, grossing an estimated US$2.2 billion, which enabled her to fork over the reported more than US$300 million. She also had loyal listeners who only bought and streamed her re-recordings of earlier albums – 'Taylor's Versions' — in support of her. (A move that cut into Big Machine's profits.) But that doesn't mean that Swift's victory can't serve as an important reminder to upcoming musicians and their handlers: Prioritise negotiating smarter deals from the outset. It's also an encouraging message for long-established artistes without their masters: If you're willing, fight for your songs, especially those languishing in the vaults. The catalogue is still king, which is why these lucrative deals continue to happen. There's one more lesson to draw from the situation. This time it's for the label to learn. Swift's victory may not have easily been possible without the backing of her Swifties, which shows that the cumulative power of fans, when they deeply connect with an artiste, is a huge asset – something some industry insiders hadn't banked on. BLOOMBERG The writer, a New York-based journalist, is the host of the YouTube channel Side Jams and author of Bon Jovi: The Story
