'%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)
An attorney subpoenaed by Blake Lively’s legal team in connection with the actress’s ongoing legal battle with Justin Baldoni appeared on the July 20, 2025, episode of Flaawsome Talk with Kjersti Flaa. During the conversation, the attorney claimed that although she had been subpoenaed by Lively via X, the platform did not share any information with Lively's legal team.
"I actually think X might have handled this better than Google and YouTube because what they said was that we did not submit any information. So then it makes sense that they (X) never submitted anything to them," she explained.
She added that since X "didn’t send" anything to Lively's legal team, there wasn't anything for her "at this point to respond to" because the subpoena was technically sent to X.
Trending
During the aforementioned episode, the attorney—who used the X handle spiritualshift_—also shared that the email from X, which included the attached subpoena, mentioned there could be “future attempts” from Lively’s side depending on how the current request was handled.
She said that the platform referenced potentially sharing her “account information” in the event of such future attempts from Lively’s legal team. The attorney expressed confusion over what exactly that entailed. While she assumed it didn’t refer to sensitive personal details like financial data, she still questioned what kind of information might be passed on.
"I don’t know what that means … it doesn’t sound like it’s personal information… like, you know, the bank accounts… (but) I don’t know what they mean by account information," she remarked.
To verify the legitimacy of the subpoena and X’s involvement, the attorney shared that she planned to contact the company directly. She hoped to reach their legal department to confirm that the email she had received was authentic and to clarify what, if anything, X had shared with Blake’s legal team.
What’s the latest development in the ongoing Blake Lively vs Justin Baldoni legal saga?
According to a Daily Mail report dated July 19, 2025, the latest development in the Blake Lively vs. Justin Baldoni legal saga saw Lively allegedly dealt a sobering admonition by the judge overseeing the case.
The judge’s pointed remarks—which echoed Mariah Carey’s viral “I don’t know her” snub—were delivered the night before Lively was scheduled to be deposed, as reported by Page Six.
During an emergency hearing held on Wednesday, July 16, 2025, a day before Lively was supposed to be deposed, Baldoni’s attorney, Kevin Fritz, argued that Lively was being given "special treatment simply because she’s a celebrity."
The judge swiftly cut Fritz off, calling the accusation a "serious issue" and urging the use of more measured language in court.
"There are problems that the court is trying to deal with, and it’s helpful for me if you frame it in language and words that the court is accustomed to. It does not help me — and it’s not helped me in this case — to start throwing around accusations," Judge Liman stated (as per the Daily Mail report).
Judge Liman further reiterated his impartiality toward the litigants’ fame:
"I’m well aware that your client [Baldoni] is a person of high profile. So is the plaintiff [Lively]. I have told you before, before I came into this case, I didn’t know who your client was, I did not know who the plaintiff was. Their names were unknown to me," he said.
The judge emphasized that public recognition held no bearing in his courtroom, stressing that, as far as he was concerned, "whether they have celebrity at the moment or not" was "irrelevant."
"Celebrity, as you know, and everybody knows, can be fleeting. It’s also not relevant to the court," Judge Liman added.
According to the same Daily Mail report, following the emergency hearing, Judge Liman ordered Blake Lively to hand over three years of her business records to Baldoni’s legal team. However, he ruled that her net worth need not be disclosed.
The purpose of this disclosure, he explained, was to determine whether Lively’s "income and expenses have changed" in light of the alleged smear campaign.
The ruling clarified that any claims of financial harm needed to be backed by evidence. The judge noted that Blake Lively must show "some basis for stating that she has suffered economic damages."
Blake Lively remains embroiled in a heated legal battle with her It Ends With Us co-star Justin Baldoni. The dispute began when Lively filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against Baldoni, alleging that he orchestrated a smear campaign against her.
Baldoni filed a countersuit, alleging defamation by Lively. However, his case was dismissed, and he has not refiled.
At present, the case is in its discovery stage. Blake Lively was scheduled to be deposed on July 17, 2025, but the deposition has been postponed and rescheduled for July 31, per ABC News. The trial date is scheduled for March 9, 2026.
