Private investigator arrested at Travis Kelce’s home while attempting to serve Taylor Swift deposition papers in Baldoni-Lively case

A private investigator, described by Star as a former police officer, was arrested at Travis Kelce’s home in Leawood, Kansas, while attempting to serve Taylor Swift deposition papers in Justin Baldoni’s legal action against Blake Lively, according to multiple outlets. The report identifies the man as Justin Lee Fisher, a private investigator who reportedly jumped a fence onto a private residence in a gated neighborhood. Police records obtained by Page Six indicate the incident occurred in the early hours of Sept. 15, and the Leawood Police Department confirmed an arrest in Kelce’s neighborhood for trespassing, though officials would not disclose the arrestee’s identity. Officers were dispatched to the private gated community shortly after 2 a.m., and the individual was released after posting bond.

Fisher told Star that he wasn’t hurt “besides being arrested for doing my job and possibly losing my [private eye] license.” He did not respond to requests for comment from Page Six, and representatives for Swift, Kelce and Baldoni did not respond to requests for comment. The incident comes as Baldoni’s ongoing legal battle with Blake Lively has featured disputes over Swift’s appearance as a deposition witness.

Two days prior to the arrest, the judge overseeing Baldoni’s case against Lively denied Baldoni’s request for an extension to depose Swift. In a ruling obtained by CNN, Judge Lewis Liman said the extension was not justified because Baldoni’s team had offered no evidence that Swift had been properly served with a renewed subpoena or that all diligence had been exhausted. The ruling underscored the complexity of the discovery process in a matter that has stretched for roughly six months.

Discovery has been ongoing for several months, with Swift’s involvement a focal point of the dispute. Documents filed earlier in the month suggested Swift had allegedly agreed to be deposed if the deadline for testimony could be extended. Swift’s representatives, however, denied that she had ever agreed to be deposed, and Baldoni’s side contended otherwise in correspondence with the judge. The back-and-forth has fed into broader tensions surrounding the case, including countersuits and defamation claims tied to the individuals involved.

Lively is suing Baldoni for alleged sexual harassment on the set of It Ends With Us, a claim Baldoni has denied. Lively has also accused Baldoni’s publicists of orchestrating a smear campaign against her. Baldoni has denied the allegations and countersued Lively and her husband, Ryan Reynolds, for defamation and extortion. That countersuit was dismissed by a court earlier this year.

Swift’s music and public appearances continue to command attention, with her upcoming Life of a Showgirl album slated for release on Oct. 3. The case remains active as both sides prepare for further court proceedings and potential depositions, though Swift’s status as a deposition witness remains unresolved following the most recent rulings.

As the legal dispute evolves, observers and fans alike will be watching how the parties navigate the next steps, including service of subpoenas, potential rescheduling of depositions, and any subsequent rulings from Judge Liman or other court officials. The intersection of celebrity, high-profile litigation, and procedural considerations continues to shape the ongoing narrative surrounding Baldoni, Lively and Swift.

The ongoing process, marked by disputes over service, scheduling, and admissibility, highlights the challenges that can arise when high-profile witnesses are involved in complex civil litigation. As both sides prepare for the next phase of discovery, the public and press will continue to monitor developments that could influence not only the case’s trajectory but also the broader conversation around celebrity legal disputes and the people connected to them.

In the wake of the incident at Kelce’s home, the legal teams have reiterated their positions on deposition timing and witness availability, while authorities and the courts weigh the appropriate scope and timing of Swift’s testimony. The situation underscores how procedural rulings can have immediate effects on the way high-profile lawsuits unfold, even as the individuals at the center of the disputes navigate careers and public interest sparked by their actions and statements.