Perez Hilton is heading to court today with cautious optimism to challenge a subpoena from Blake Lively’s legal team, arguing for journalistic protection to safeguard his sources while representing himself due to financial constraints. This hearing is a key development in Lively’s ongoing lawsuit against Justin Baldoni, which alleges sexual harassment and a retaliatory smear campaign.
Blake Lively, renowned for her role in ‘Gossip Girl,’ filed a lawsuit against Justin Baldoni, her director and co-star in the 2024 film ‘It Ends With Us,’ accusing him of sexual harassment on set and orchestrating a smear campaign after she raised concerns. The allegations, first reported by The New York Times in December 2024, have polarized public opinion and drawn intense media scrutiny, with fans and commentators taking sides in the contentious dispute.
As part of her legal efforts, Lively’s team issued subpoenas to several content creators, including Perez Hilton, who has produced over 500 critical articles and posts about her, often using derogatory nicknames like ‘Litigious Lively.’ The subpoenas seek contracts, messages, and other materials to determine if Baldoni’s camp provided information, payment, or direction to these creators, which Lively claims would evidence a coordinated smear campaign.
Hilton, a longtime celebrity blogger, is fighting the subpoena by asserting journalistic privilege, arguing that compelling him to reveal sources violates First Amendment principles and Nevada state laws. He maintains that his coverage was independent and not influenced by any external parties, stating he was never paid or directed to target Lively. The hearing today in a Las Vegas court will address his motion to quash the subpoena.
Financially strained, Hilton is representing himself instead of hiring a lawyer to save an estimated $50,000 in legal fees, as his usual attorney is already representing Baldoni in the case. Despite this, he remains hopeful that legal precedents and reporter’s privilege doctrines will protect him from having to disclose confidential information.
Other subpoenaed individuals include right-wing personality Candace Owens and Andy Signore of Popcorned Planet, all of whom have published negative content about Lively. YouTube has also been subpoenaed separately for records. Lively’s spokesperson clarified that subpoenas are standard evidence-gathering tools and not accusations of wrongdoing, emphasizing the focus on fact-finding for the sexual harassment lawsuit.
Recent court filings have added complexity, with unsealed text messages suggesting Baldoni’s production company, Wayfarer Studios, paid a social media specialist $90,000 for engagement that Lively’s team alleges was meant to stoke backlash against her. The specialist, Jed Wallace, is now suing Lively for defamation, claiming he was merely tracking social media and not involved in any campaign.
This case highlights tensions between legal proceedings and press freedoms, potentially setting precedents for how journalists and content creators are treated in defamation and harassment cases. The outcome could influence the broader lawsuit and impact future legal strategies involving media figures.
Looking ahead, the court’s decision on the subpoena will shape the direction of Lively’s case against Baldoni, possibly revealing new evidence or reinforcing protections for independent reporting. The resolution may also affect public perception and legal standards for journalistic integrity in the digital age.