Perez Hilton Declares 'Plot Twist' As Judge Denies Lively’s Subpoena Motion

Perez Hilton made a scene in more ways than one this afternoon, stepping into the courtroom amid Blake Lively’s bitter legal feud with Justin Baldoni. The longtime celebrity blogger, whose real name is Mario Lavandeira, arrived wearing a metallic floral blazer with a silky pink lining, turning heads before walking into the courtroom. The Blast was inside the courtroom as Perez Hilton testified in one of Hollywood’s messiest showdowns. Now, in a stunning turn of events, Perez Hilton says he’s “in shock” after a federal judge denied Blake Lively’s motion to compel him to comply with a subpoena in her high-stakes lawsuit. The celebrity blogger, who told The Blast exclusively that he expected the court to “for sure rule against him,” is now calling the outcome a major “plot twist” in the explosive Hollywood legal battle.

Hilton was subpoenaed by Lively, who accuses him of using his “sizable digital platform” to aid Baldoni in an alleged smear campaign. Lively is suing Baldoni, her "It Ends With Us" co-star and director, for sexual harassment and retaliation, and she argues Hilton’s reporting wasn’t independent journalism, but part of a coordinated effort to damage her reputation.

She points to Hilton’s ties to Baldoni’s legal team, noting he has previously been represented by Baldoni’s attorney Bryan Freedman. Hilton was also featured in the recent documentary "In Dispute: Lively vs. Baldoni," which chronicled the ongoing war between the two stars.

Representing himself, Hilton told The Blast he’s poured “dozens of hours” into preparing for the hearing that occured on Thursday afternoon.

Thursday’s hearing centered on whether the case should be moved to New York or remain in Las Vegas.

Now, The Blast has obtained court documents revealing that a federal judge has denied Lively’s motion to compel celebrity blogger Hilton to comply with a subpoena in the actress’s ongoing lawsuit tied to the film "It Ends With Us."

According to the filing from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Lively and her legal team sought to enforce a subpoena served on July 19, 2025. Her side claimed Hilton was one of several “Content Creators” allegedly involved in seeding or generating social media content that may have benefited Wayfarer Studios and others named in her explosive lawsuit.

Lively’s lawyers argued that Hilton, a nonparty, should be compelled to turn over materials or communications connected to those efforts.

Hilton, however, swiftly moved to quash the subpoena in his home district of Nevada, insisting the New York court lacked jurisdiction over him. The filing shows he repeatedly stressed that any challenge to the subpoena had to be litigated where he resides, not in New York federal court.

Judge Lewis J. Liman agreed, noting, “It is axiomatic that, before compelling a nonparty to comply with a subpoena pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, a court must have personal jurisdiction over that nonparty.”

Lively’s team attempted to argue that Hilton had either consented to jurisdiction in New York or waived his right to object by making certain filings in the case, including a motion asking for court oversight of future subpoenas against nonparties.

But the court rejected that argument, finding Hilton’s requests did not amount to a legal submission on the subpoena’s merits. Instead, the judge emphasized that Hilton has consistently fought the subpoena in Nevada and maintained his objections to jurisdiction.

Another key factor was Hilton’s decision to represent himself without an attorney. Judge Liman wrote that courts are “ordinarily obligated to afford a special solicitude to pro se litigants,” acknowledging the risk of forfeiting rights through inadvertence. This caution weighed against deeming Hilton’s motions as a waiver of his jurisdictional defense.

Hilton told The Blast exclusively that he is "in shock" as he thought the court would "for sure rule against him."

In the end, the court concluded it lacked personal jurisdiction to enforce the subpoena. Lively’s motion to compel was denied without prejudice, leaving the fight to continue in Nevada federal court.