Blake Lively Feud With Anna Kendrick Heats Up Again! Plus, Fighting With Justin Baldoni’s Attorney!

Poot Lively’s Legal Disaster: Co-Star Drama, Smear Campaign Allegations, and a Subpoena Meltdown

This is exactly the last thing Poot Lively would want.

Yes, we’re saying Poot—Perez Hilton’s cheeky nickname for Blake Lively when the public persona starts cracking and chaos reigns. And right now? The “It Ends With Us” star is knee-deep in a storm of subpoenas, courtroom shade, and rumors of on-set feuds with co-stars like Anna Kendrick. From Hollywood red carpets to federal filings, the drama just keeps escalating.

Let’s break it all down.

🎬 Co-Star Cold War: Anna Kendrick vs. Blake Lively?

Before we get to the subpoenas and legal posturing, let’s revisit where the fire was first lit: the red carpet.

Blake Lively and Anna Kendrick reunited earlier this year for Another Simple Extortion, the sequel to A Simple Favor. But rather than celebrating a glamorous comeback, the movie’s press tour was awkward. And fans noticed.

At the South by Southwest (SXSW) premiere, Kendrick was asked what it was like working with Blake again. Her answer? A curt:
“Oh, you know.”
That’s it. No gushing praise. No laughs. Just vibes. Icy ones.

She also refused to take photos side-by-side with Blake—not on the red carpet, not in the theater. Rumors about their strained relationship, long whispered in the shadows of Hollywood gossip blogs, suddenly had receipts.

Then Henry Golding, their co-star, stirred the pot further.

🔥 Henry Golding Fans the Flames

Appearing on Watch What Happens Live with Andy Cohen, Golding played a little game called “One to Agree or Disagree.” When asked if co-star clash rumors usually have some truth to them, Henry confidently held up a card that read:
“Agree.”

Cohen didn’t miss the moment. He threw in a pointed comment about A Simple Favor. Golding coyly replied,
“I don’t know what you’re talking about.”
Uh-huh. Sure.

Now let’s be real: this isn’t just petty celebrity beef—it’s context for understanding the larger mess Blake is entangled in. Because what started as red carpet awkwardness has evolved into a legal quagmire so twisted, it might just deserve its own courtroom drama series.

📜 Blake vs. Baldoni (and Everyone Else)

Enter the subpoena scandal.

Lively has served a subpoena to the law firm representing Justin Baldoni (Wayfairer Studios), demanding discovery—essentially legal permission to dig into private communications and documents. Her claim? That the firm, known as LFTC (Liner Freriedman Tatleman & Culie), acted as an agent in a media smear campaign against her.

Let’s pause there.

Blake Lively—a global superstar with one of the most tightly managed images in Hollywood—is alleging that Baldoni’s legal team was part of an orchestrated public takedown. She believes they were leaking, coordinating, or influencing negative media narratives about her during the ongoing It Ends With Us-related legal drama.

But the law firm isn’t having it.

⚖️ The Motion to Quash: LFTC Claps Back

In response, LFTC filed a motion to quash—legalese for “shut this subpoena down immediately.” And their arguments are devastatingly clear:

Attorney-Client Privilege:
Just because a law firm is publicly advocating for a client doesn’t mean the opposing party gets to rifle through their files. That’s not how discovery works. Revealing such documents would eviscerate legal protections.

Fishing Expedition:
LFTC accuses Blake of going on a “hypothetical theory of relevance” spree, using vague accusations to justify wide-reaching document demands. They see this as an attempt to harass opposing counsel, not seek justice.

No Need, No Grounds:
According to legal precedent, to subpoena opposing counsel, the person must prove three things:

The information is unavailable anywhere else

It’s not privileged

It’s crucial to the case

Blake, they argue, fails on at least two of these points. She could get the information elsewhere, and she can’t prove it’s critical.

Venue Dispute:
Blake is trying to transfer the subpoena fight from California to New York, where her other case is pending. But LFTC says, “Not so fast.” While their website lists a New York office, they argue no actual legal staff works there—and forcing them to litigate across the country would be unfair.

🧠 Legal Facts, Not Feelings

Perez Hilton, who has been narrating this chaos like a Bravo reunion show host crossed with a paralegal, praises the legal precision here. And he’s not wrong.

Lively’s attempt to peek into LFTC’s internal communications has all the makings of a “Hail Mary” move—a desperate legal tactic when the facts aren’t falling in your favor.

And here’s where it gets deliciously ironic: Blake’s own legal team has made multiple public statements about the case. So if she believes media comments are grounds for a subpoena, is she willing to let opposing counsel subpoena her lawyers in return?

Didn’t think so.

👑 Poot Lively and the PR Nightmare

Now, back to Poot. The Blake Lively alter-ego meme that rears its head when things get… chaotic.

This whole legal crusade feels like it’s being driven more by pride and power than legal necessity. The subpoenas. The venue changes. The media theatrics. The fishy Vanzan company (possibly tied to Lively or Ryan Reynolds) that’s at the center of another sham-lawsuit claim involving stolen phone data—it all feels like an empire struggling to control a narrative that’s slipping fast.

And now? It’s all backfiring.

Public image? Bruised. Legal strategy? Questionable. Court of public opinion? Divided.

🗣️ Final Thoughts

Blake Lively built her brand on elegance, poise, and perfect Instagram posts. But beneath the glitz, the last few months have revealed a messy, litigious underworld filled with secrets, subpoenas, and celebrity cold wars.

This case might still move forward. Or Judge Lyman in New York could toss the whole thing out. Either way, one thing’s clear:

This is the last thing Poot Lively would want.