A legal fight that turned personal

Celebrity blogger Perez Hilton says he’s finally free from Blake Lively’s subpoena, a move he insists only happened because the ACLU of Nevada took his case. Hilton revealed on Popcorn Planet that the subpoena—part of the ongoing battle involving Lively, Justin Baldoni, and high-profile witnesses—was abruptly withdrawn last week after the ACLU stepped in, pressuring Lively’s legal team.

“There was a possibility that even though she withdrew the subpoena, the judge might not have signed off on it, but he did,” Hilton explained. “Had the ACLU not agreed to represent me, had they not called her on Thursday, the very first thing Friday morning she would not have withdrawn it. It’s only because of optics. They did not want to be fighting the ACLU of Nevada.”

Hilton called the subpoena “disgustingly, painfully broad,” claiming it was an attempt at retaliation for his outspoken criticism of Lively and her husband, Ryan Reynolds.

The shrinking subpoena and a legal tactic exposed
At one point, Hilton says Lively’s lawyers scaled down their demands to just “five percent” of the original request. But he argues that never should have been necessary. “They should not have subpoenaed me according to Rule 45 until they exhausted all other means,” Hilton insisted. “That word is there in the law: exhausted. They hadn’t.”

For Hilton, the fight became not just about avoiding an invasive subpoena but also about protecting journalistic privilege and his sources. He says a judge in Nevada once demanded he provide a “privilege log” that included source names—a ruling Hilton called deeply troubling for First Amendment protections.

Taylor Swift pulled into the fray
While Hilton celebrated his personal win, the larger legal battle is far from over. Taylor Swift’s name has been repeatedly invoked in connection to the case, with speculation swirling over whether she could be deposed.

Hilton dismissed the likelihood, suggesting Swift’s world-class legal team would never allow her to testify unless absolutely required. Still, he acknowledged the theatrics involved. “They didn’t really care about deposing Taylor Swift,” Hilton said of Lively’s side. “It was just using the docket for press. It was just pushing buttons.”

Swift herself recently said she only learned about the potential subpoena “three days ago,” casting doubt on whether Justin Baldoni’s team had seriously pursued her testimony.

Settlement ahead?

Despite the courtroom drama, Hilton believes both sides will eventually settle before trial. “Too much is at stake for both sides,” he argued. “It is not a guaranteed home run for either side. The legal definition, the bar for sexual harassment, is very high. So for her to get a win that Justin Baldoni sexually harassed her is going to be hard. If she loses that, then retaliation falls apart too.”

Hilton suggested the legal maneuvering on both sides is “just theatrics” leading up to a settlement likely to happen “sometime at the beginning of March just before the trial starts.”

Optics and retaliation
Throughout the discussion, Hilton emphasized retaliation as a driving factor in why he and other commentators were targeted. “She would have kept it going just to pay back for all the nicknames and for me being critical,” Hilton said.

He also pointed to what he views as inconsistencies in Lively’s legal strategy, including why figures like Billy Bush were never subpoenaed while he and others were dragged into court.

The bigger picture
Even with his subpoena withdrawn, Hilton insists the fight raised larger issues about free speech, retaliation, and legal overreach in celebrity disputes. He praised the ACLU for stepping in when others didn’t: “They understood the First Amendment implications and what’s at stake.”

For now, Hilton may be free of Blake Lively’s legal team, but the storm around the broader case—including lingering questions about Taylor Swift’s potential involvement—shows no signs of clearing.

As Hilton himself put it: “This is a show. They’re giving us theatrics. But I ultimately believe they’ll settle. Until then, it’s all about optics—and they didn’t want to be fighting the ACLU of Nevada.”