In a major legal ruling, United States District Judge Lewis J. Liman denied Blake Lively's motion to compel celebrity blogger Perez Hilton to produce evidence in her lawsuit. The ruling was made on August 28, 2025, marking a significant procedural victory for Perez Hilton, legal name Mario Armando Lavandeira, Jr.Blake Lively had sought to enforce a subpoena served on July 19, 2025, claiming that Perez Hilton was named as one of several "Content Creators" who allegedly generated social media content, potentially siding with It Ends With Us director Justin Baldoni. Hilton ultimately moved to quash the subpoena in his home district of Nevada, claiming the New York court lacked personal jurisdiction over him.In a seven-page memorandum and order, Judge Liman sided with Hilton, writing:"The Court accordingly holds that it lacks personal jurisdiction over Lavandeira with respect to the Subpoena. Lively’s motion to compel is thus denied without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction."The court found that Lively had not alleged that the discovery she sought related to Hilton's contacts with New York but argued he had consented to personal jurisdiction through his filings with the court.Podcaster Andy Signore, who is also one of the content creators subpoenaed by Blake Lively, took to X on August 29 to celebrate the court's decision. "BREAKING! Huge Last Minute WIN For @ThePerezHilton! As I Hoped & Predicted!! Judge Liman went and did the RIGHT THING!! HE DENIED Blake Lively's Motion to Compel Perez Hilton to be tried in NYC," he wrote.Signore also conducted a livestream on his YouTube channel, Popcorned Planet, with legal expert Leanne Newton and opined that despite Judge Liman's alleged bias towards Lively, he did the "right thing" by ruling in favor of Hilton.Judge Liman denies Blake Lively's motion against Perez Hilton without prejudiceJudge Lewis Liman carefully examined whether the actions of Perez Hilton, including filing a motion for a protective order, amounted to a waiver of his jurisdictional defense. The court concluded that the actions did not, resting on Hilton’s longstanding and affirmative objections to personal jurisdiction in New York.The judge specifically noted Hilton’s pro se status, stating that courts are "ordinarily obligated to afford a special solicitude to pro se litigants” who may “forfeit important rights through inadvertence.”The motion was denied without prejudice, which leaves the possibility for Blake Lively to seek to compel the subpoena again, though the specificity and thorough nature of Judge Liman's order would indicate a high bar against any future attempts.Additionally, the case now moves to the District of Nevada where Hilton's motion to quash the subpoena will be litigated. For now, Perez Hilton has avoided being compelled to comply with Blake Lively's discovery demands in a New York lawsuit.