Taylor Swift and Hugh Jackman could be subpoenaed in Blake Lively vs. Justin Baldoni’s high-profile legal battle, headed for trial in March 2026.
In a turn that reads like a Hollywood script no one signed up to star in, two of Tinseltown’s most adored figures—Taylor Swift and Hugh Jackman—find themselves potentially on the witness stand in a high-stakes legal drama involving Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni.
The duo, both intimate friends of Lively and her husband Ryan Reynolds, could receive subpoenas to testify in the case that Lively filed in December 2024, accusing Baldoni of sexual harassment and a retaliatory smear campaign—and in response, Baldoni countersued for a staggering $400 million, alleging defamation and “civil extortion” by Lively, Reynolds and their PR allies.
As this story hurtles toward a New York federal courtroom in March 2026, the question on everyone’s mind is whether celebrity will serve as shield or spotlight in a case that blurs the line between personal loyalty and legal obligation.
The conflict erupted on December 20, 2024, when Blake Lively filed a complaint with California’s Civil Rights Department, alleging that Justin Baldoni created a hostile work environment with inappropriate comments and boundary-crossing behavior on the set of It Ends With Us. Soon after, Baldoni’s talent agency, WME, dropped him as a client—a move the agency later clarified was tied to Lively’s complaint rather than any demand from her camp.
That same December, The New York Times ran an exposé titled “We Can Bury Anyone,” detailing claims that Baldoni’s team actively sought to discredit Lively across traditional and social media platforms.
Meanwhile, the pressure cooker of public opinion intensified. Lively’s complaint named not only Baldoni and Wayfarer Studios but also alleged that he had orchestrated a coordinated smear campaign—a charge his attorney Bryan Freedman vehemently denies, calling the lawsuit a “shameful” work of fiction.
Then, in January 2025, Baldoni struck back with a 179-page countersuit seeking $400 million from Lively, Reynolds, their publicist Leslie Sloane, and Sloane’s PR firm, Vision PR, Inc., accusing them of civil extortion and defamation.
Enter the “anyone with knowledge” clause. A source tells PEOPLE that investigators are leaving no stone—or superstar—unturned. “Anyone that had any knowledge of this situation will be subpoenaed, no matter their celebrity status,” the insider said. Taylor Swift—godmother to Lively and Reynolds’ four children—fits that bill perfectly.
Hugh Jackman, too, having shared red carpets and NFL sidelines with the couple (even cheering on Swift’s boyfriend, Travis Kelce), may be called to testify about whether they wielded undue influence behind the scenes.
Yet another insider cautions that this dash for big names might be “smoke and mirrors,” a distraction from the core allegations against Baldoni. Swift and Jackman, they say, “are not privy to anything going on,” and their potential subpoenas could be more strategic theater than substantive necessity.
Still, TMZ reports that Baldoni’s legal team views the mere threat of a Swift deposition as leverage in settlement talks, dubbing her “the ace in the hole” that could swing negotiations. In Spain, Los 40 even speculated that Swift’s appearance on the stand could reshape public perception—and quashed rumors of her launching a new tour in 2026 amid the legal storm.
Calling Swift or Jackman isn’t just a lean towards celebrity—it could underscore questions about whether Reynolds and Lively pressured Baldoni to accept rewrites or muted rumors before they spiraled into a full-blown allegation.
Courthouse News points out that Baldoni’s countersuit alleges a conspiracy of defamation and civil extortion, claiming Lively and Reynolds conspired to “smear” him via crisis PR operatives. On the other side, Lively’s attorneys argue that any pushback from Baldoni’s camp is “vengeful” and barred by California’s anti-retaliation statute.
In parallel skirmishes over evidence, a federal judge recently quashed Lively’s subpoenas for Baldoni’s and his associates’ phone records—calling them “overly intrusive” and a “fishing expedition”—though he allowed more narrowly tailored discovery for identified witnesses. That ruling underscores just how high the courts are setting the bar for privacy and relevance.
With the trial slated to begin on March 9, 2026, both camps are scrambling for favorable rulings before opening statements. Lively has even filed a motion to restrict access to her private text messages, warning of “irreparable harm” if Baldoni’s team leaks conversations with celebrity friends.
Baldoni’s side, in turn, pushes to deny her motion to dismiss his countersuit, labeling it “abhorrent” and vowing to hold Lively “accountable” for “pure malice”.
As the calendar inches forward, pop-culture loyalists and legal eagles alike will be watching: Will Taylor Swift and Hugh Jackman be compelled to chronicle what they know—or what they don’t know—beyond the velvet ropes of friendship? And will their testimony tip the scales in a case that already reads like a blockbuster? Stay tuned: this is one courtroom saga that refuses to fade to black.
source PEOPLE
