UPDATE (Sept. 12): In an order Friday evening, Judge Lewis J. Liman denied Justin Baldoni’s request to depose Taylor Swift after the current discovery deadline, stating that Baldoni’s team “failed to demonstrate appropriate diligence” after only recently reaching out to Swift’s camp about scheduling the deposition. This means Baldoni has lost his shot at deposing Swift, foreclosing what could have been an intense court battle over whether the pop star would be forced to sit for questioning.

PREVIOUSLY: Taylor Swift‘s lawyers say the pop superstar has not agreed to sit for a deposition in Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni’s bitter legal feud over the movie It Ends With Us, refuting claims from Baldoni’s camp that the star had consented to the sit-down.

Baldoni’s attorneys wrote in a request for a discovery schedule extension on Thursday (Sept. 11) that Swift “has agreed to appear for deposition” but cannot do so earlier than Oct. 20 because of “preexisting professional obligations” — presumably referring to the rollout of her highly anticipated twelfth album, The Life of a Showgirl, which arrives on Oct. 3.

But Swift’s longtime attorney Douglas Baldridge says in a Friday (Sept. 12) court filing that this is false.

“My client did not agree to a deposition, but if she is forced into a deposition, we advised (after first hearing about the deposition just three days ago) that her schedule would accommodate the time required during the week of October 20 if the parties were able to work out their disputes,” wrote Baldridge.

Baldoni has been saying for months that Swift’s friendship with Lively makes her a key witness in the lawsuit, in which Lively alleges Baldoni sexually harassed her on the set of It Ends With Us and then orchestrated a retaliatory smear campaign after she complained.

In June, the federal judge overseeing the legal battle granted Baldoni’s request to access Swift and Lively’s text messages as part of the document discovery process. Now, Baldoni wants to depose Swift.

The current discovery schedule has all depositions concluding by the end of September, in anticipation of a March 2026 trial date. But lawyers for Baldoni and his production company, Wayfarer Studios, asked for an extension on Thursday for the Swift deposition.

Swift’s reps have previously slammed Baldoni for “creating tabloid clickbait” by dragging the star into the case despite her minimal involvement in It Ends With Us. Baldridge reiterated this position in his letter to the court on Friday, writing, “Since the inception of this matter we have consistently maintained that my client has no material role in this action.”

Lively’s lawyers have similarly lambasted Baldoni for involving Swift in the litigation, writing in their own Friday court response that the strategy is designed “to generate a media spectacle.”

The Lively team is against extending the discovery cutoff to question Swift, saying it’s Baldoni’s own fault for waiting until this week to contact the singer’s counsel about scheduling her deposition.

“The Wayfarer defendants’ lack of diligence, and disrespect for Ms. Swift’s privacy and schedule, is astounding,” wrote Lively’s lawyer Michael Gottlieb. “Ms. Swift is someone whose calendar should be presumed to be packed with professional obligations for months in advance. At any point over the past six months, the Wayfarer defendants could have noticed a deposition, served a subpoena and negotiated an agreeable time and place for this deposition. But they did not.”

Judge Lewis J. Liman has not yet ruled on Baldoni’s discovery extension request.

The fiery legal battle between Lively and Baldoni has been in full force since last December, when the actress brought sexual harassment and retaliation claims against her It Ends With Us co-star and director.

Baldoni vehemently denied the allegations and countersued Lively and her inner circle for defamation, though Judge Liman later dismissed Baldoni’s counterclaims as legally invalid. Now, only Lively’s original allegations are headed toward trial this coming spring.

The Baldoni team has sought to involve Swift since the early days of the case, writing in court filings that Lively weaponized the “influential and wealthy celebrities” in her orbit to gain leverage over him while making It Ends With Us.

This story was updated on Sept. 12 at 2:27 p.m. ET to reflect that Swift has not agreed to a deposition.

California lawmakers just paved the way for a whole lot more housing in the Golden State.

In the waning hours of the 2025 legislative session, the state Senate voted 21 to 8 to approve Senate Bill 79, a landmark housing bill that overrides local zoning laws to expand high-density housing near transit hubs. The controversial bill received a final concurrence vote from the Senate on Friday, a day after passing in the California assembly with a vote of 41 to 17.

The bill had already squeaked through the state Senate by a narrow margin earlier this year, but since it was amended in the following months, it required a second approval. It will head to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk in October.

One of the more ambitious state-imposed efforts to increase housing density in recent years, the bill was introduced in March by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), who stresses that the state needs to take immediate action to address California’s housing shortage. It opens the door for taller, denser housing near transit corridors such as bus stops and train stations: up to nine stories for buildings adjacent to certain transit stops, seven stories for buildings within a quarter-mile, and six stories for buildings within a half-mile.

Single-family neighborhoods within a half-mile of transit stops would be subject to the new zoning rules.

Height limits are based on tiers. Tier 1 zoning, which includes heavy rail lines such as the L.A. Metro B and D lines, allows for six- to nine-story buildings, depending on proximity to the transit hub. Tier 2 zoning — which includes light rail lines such as the A, C, E and K lines, as well as bus routes with dedicated lanes — allows for five- to eight-story buildings.

An amateur map released by a cartographer and fact-checked by YIMBY Action, a housing non-profit that helped push the bill through, gives an idea of the areas around L.A. that would be eligible for development under SB 79. Tier 1 zones include hubs along Wilshire Blvd., Vermont Ave., and Hollywood Blvd., as well as a handful of spots in Downtown L.A. and the San Fernando Valley.

Tier 2 zones are more spread out, dotting Exposition Blvd. along the E line, stretching toward Inglewood along the K line, and running from Long Beach into the San Gabriel Valley along the A line.

Assembly members debated the bill for around 40 minutes on Thursday evening and cheered after it was passed.

“Over the last five years, housing affordability and homelessness have consistently been among the top priorities in California. The smartest place to build new housing is within existing communities, near the state’s major transit investments that connect people to jobs, schools and essential services,” said Assemblymember Sharon Quirk-Silva (D-Orange County) in support of the bill.

Other assembly members, including Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland), Juan Carrillo (D-Palmdale) and Josh Hoover (R-Folsom) voiced their support.

Proponents say drastic measures are necessary given the state’s affordability crisis.

“SB 79 is what we’ve been working towards for a decade – new housing next to our most frequently used train stations. This bill has the potential to unlock hundreds of thousands of new multi-family homes,” said YIMBY Action California director Leora Tanjuatco Ross.

Critics claim the blanket mandate is an overreach, stripping local authorities of their ability to promote responsible growth.

Assemblymember Rick Zbur (D-West Hollywood) argued against the bill, claiming it will affect lower-priced neighborhoods more than wealthy ones since land prices are cheaper for housing developers.

The vote came a few weeks after the Los Angeles City Council came out against the bill, voting 8 to 5 on a resolution opposing it.

Councilmember Traci Park, who co-authored the resolution with Councilmember John Lee, called SB 79 a “one-size-fits-all mandate from Sacramento.” Lee called it “chaos.”

The resolution called for L.A. to be exempt from the upzoning since it already has a state-approved housing plan.

The bill has spurred multiple protests in Southern California communities, including Pacific Palisades and San Diego. Residents fear the zoning changes would alter single-family communities and force residents into competition with developers, who would be incentivized under the new rules to purchase properties near transit corridors.

However, support for SB 79 surged in recent days after the State Building and Construction Trades Council, a powerful labor group that represents union construction workers, agreed to reverse their opposition in exchange for amendments that add union hiring to certain projects.

In a statement after the deal was struck, the trades council president Chris Hannan said the amendments would provide good jobs and training to California’s skilled construction workforce.

Wiener, who has unsuccessfully tried to pass similar legislation twice before, said the deal boosted the bill’s chances.