Blake Lively vs. Perez Hilton: Judge Delivers Stunning Blow to Blake’s Legal Team
In a dramatic twist on August 28, 2025, celebrity blogger Perez Hilton emerged from court, declaring he had taken a “big L”—only to reveal the opposite: a major legal victory against Blake Lively’s legal maneuvering. In a federal court showdown tied to Lively’s lawsuit against co-star-director Justin Baldoni, Judge Lewis J. Liman denied Lively’s motion to compel Hilton to comply with a subpoena, marking a significant setback for the actress’s team.People.com+15The Blast+15Perez Hilton+15
How We Got Here: A Brief Backdrop
This courtroom clash stems from Blake Lively’s lawsuit against Justin Baldoni, alleging sexual harassment during their work on It Ends With Us, followed by a smear campaign if she came forward. Baldoni responded in kind, filing a $400 million countersuit for defamation and extortion—a legal retaliation that was dismissed in June 2025.Perez Hilton+15EW.com+15People.com+15
As part of her evidence-gathering effort, Lively’s legal team subpoenaed various media figures, including Perez Hilton, Candace Owens, Andy Signore, and Scooter Braun, aiming to trace possible involvement in a coordinated smear campaign purportedly orchestrated by Baldoni’s camp.Perez Hilton+15People.com+15Yahoo News UK+15 Among those targeted, Perez Hilton stood out: Lively’s filings accuse him of publishing hundreds of negative articles and videos—upwards of 500 disparaging posts—about her, with inflammatory nicknames such as “Blackface Blake,” “Ku Klux Khaleesi,” and “Litigious Lively.”TAG24+5FandomWire+5New York Post+5
The Subpoena Clash in Court
Perez Hilton challenged the subpoena on the grounds that it was overbroad, burdensome, and infringed upon journalistic protections. He did not have legal representation, famously stating he couldn’t afford one, and vowed to fight the motion in federal court in Nevada, where he resides.Page Six
The pivotal hearing—which took place in Las Vegas federal court—centered on whether a New York court had sufficient personal jurisdiction over Hilton to enforce the subpoena. Hilton consistently maintained he should not be compelled in New York, and his legal filings underscored this jurisdictional concern.The Blast
A Plot Twist: Judge Rules in Hilton’s Favor
In a surprising turn, the judge denied Lively’s motion to compel, stating that personal jurisdiction over Perez Hilton in New York had not been clearly established. The ruling confirmed that a nonparty cannot be compelled via subpoena unless jurisdiction is properly in place, and Hilton’s filings and resistance in Nevada were sufficient to halt the enforcement. The judge’s decision effectively sent the battle back to Nevada, denying enforcement “without prejudice”—meaning Lively can still pursue enforcement locally, but not here.The Blast
Hilton reacted with disbelief, describing the courtroom scene as a “plot twist,” and expressed his shock at prevailing despite having anticipated failure.The Blast
Additional Courtroom Maneuvers
This wasn’t the only courtroom triumph for Blake Lively recently. Earlier in August, Judge Liman granted her request to keep her deposition transcript under seal, criticizing Justin Baldoni’s team for dumping almost 300 pages of depositions into the public docket in what was seen as a PR stunt. Moreover, the judge warned Hilton about courtroom decorum, cautioning that further misconduct could lead to contempt charges.Page Six+15Perez Hilton+15New York Post+15
Meanwhile, on the emotional distress front, the judge had ruled against Lively’s attempt to drop those claims mid-case to avoid releasing her medical records—stipulating she cannot abandon the claims and then pivotally reintroduce them later.Page Six+3Perez Hilton+3People.com+3
The Core Takeaway
Lively’s attempt to compel Perez Hilton to turn over private communications hit a major roadblock: personal jurisdiction matters, and it remains unproven in New York. For now, Hilton remains a nonparty protected by Nevada courts, shielded from overreaching discovery tactics.
What’s Next?
-
Lively may refile in Nevada, where Hilton has already raised objections.
-
The battle will continue through motions over jurisdiction and protective orders.
-
The broader trial—currently slated for March 2026—is slowly taking shape amid legal crossfire.The Blast+1People.com+3EW.com+3Page Six+3
Verdict Recap
Headline: “Blake Lively’s Legal Team Shut Down—For Now: Judge Rejects Subpoena Against Perez Hilton!”
-
What happened: Judge denied Lively’s motion to compel, citing lack of jurisdiction.
-
Why it matters: It’s a big loss for Lively’s discovery strategy and a win for journalistic protections.
-
Next steps: Legal fight heads to Nevada—scene of new jurisdictional showdown.
In summary, this courtroom twist highlights the importance of jurisdictional boundaries and the protections afforded—even to controversial bloggers—under U.S. law. The fight over press, privilege, and power continues, but for today, Perez Hilton scores a significant defensive win.
