'%20x='0'%20y='0'%20height='100%25'%20width='100%25'%20%0A%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20xlink%3Ahref=''%3E%3C/image%3E%3C/svg%3E)
Amid the ongoing lawsuit between Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni, the Another Simple Favor actress has reportedly withdrawn the subpoena against Perez Hilton. The pop culture commentator was dragged into the legal drama between Lively and Baldoni when Lively's team served a subpoena to him on July 19 this year.
Blake Lively’s team requested Hilton’s communications and other details, suspecting the podcaster of involvement in an alleged smear campaign against the actress, orchestrated by Justin Baldoni. A September 12 exclusive by Page Six confirmed that Blake Lively's lawyers had withdrawn the subpoena.
Trending
Perez Hilton also confirmed the news in his September 12 podcast. Expressing his joy over the withdrawal, the celebrity blogger read the court document.
"It says respondent and cross-movant, Blake Lively, respectfully files this notice to inform the court that she is withdrawing the subpoena she served on third party Mario Lavandeira Jr. [Perez Hilton] in connection with Lively versus Wayfarer Studios underlying litigation," Hilton read the court filing.
He continued reading:
"The defendants in the underlying litigation produced more than 80,000 pages of material on the evening of September 8th, 2025, in response to an order compelling them to produce certain categories of documents, including communications with content providers who seated, generated, created, or influenced social media or provided related digital or social media services directly or indirectly at their request."
As mentioned earlier, Blake Lively subpoenaed the influencer, suspecting collusion with Justin Baldoni and Wayfarer parties. Perez Hilton had denied such allegations in the past. In his latest YouTube video, the podcaster reiterated that no one from the Wayfarer parties had ever asked him to write anything negative about Blake Lively.
Perez Hilton added that if he had possessed a “bombshell” capable of damaging Justin Baldoni and the Wayfarer parties, they would have used their resources to get him legal representation. Hilton noted that they had never been involved in his response to the subpoena in any way.
Blake Lively’s subpoena against Perez Hilton withdrawn following ACLU intervention
The celebrity blogger shared earlier that he had been dealing with the subpoena issue without lawyers on his own. However, in his September 12 podcast, Hilton informed that ACLU Nevada offered their help and took his case. Hilton claimed that Blake Lively's lawyers withdrew the subpoena after the ACLU stepped in.
The podcaster stated that during a hearing last week in Nevada, he met a local lawyer who put him in touch with the ACLU. The influencer expressed his gratitude towards the nonprofit civil rights organization for representing him. Hilton said that it was only after the ACLU's help that the subpoena was withdrawn.
"The ACLU of Nevada called Subpoena Serena's lawyers and told them they were representing me. That was yesterday. Today, they filed a notice with the court that they are withdrawing the subpoena. I know with every fiber of my being that if the ACLU had not agreed to represent me and did not call yesterday, today the subpoena would not have been withdrawn," Perez Hilton said.
Prior to ACLU intervention, Hilton dealt with court proceedings on his own. In his podcast, Hilton also thanked ChatGPT for helping with preparing his court filings. Perez Hilton had earlier requested the court to quash the subpoena, citing the journalistic privilege.
