A YouTuber whose private details Blake Lively had sought through a subpoena is requesting a protective order against her, despite Lively retracting her request.

Lively, 37, had originally issued subpoenas to both Google and X to gather personal information from over a dozen journalists and small creators as part of her ongoing legal battle with Justin Baldoni.

She was met with an explosive backlash on free-speech grounds, and on Saturday she rescinded subpoenas involving three independent content creators.

However, one of the individuals, Lauren Neidigh, addressed a letter to the judge on Monday, arguing that she still required a protective order against Lively, fearing the possibility that the actress might seek her information again in the future.

‘[Lively’s] Subpoena targeted creators who have expressed unfavorable opinions about her online. The Subpoena was not supported by any evidence,’ argued Nedleigh, whose username is LethalLauren904, in a letter obtained by the Daily Mail.

‘It served to intimidate, harass, chill constitutionally protected free speech, and threaten the safety and privacy of non-parties who are not involved in this litigation.’

Daily Mail has contacted Lively’s representative for comment. 

Neidigh alleged that Lively’s legal team had been ‘largely unresponsive’ to her attempts to get in touch with them and were unable to explain to her what relevance her bank details had to Lively’s legal battle with Baldoni.

She maintained that although Lively has dropped her subpoena, she could go back on her decision later, leaving Neidigh facing an ‘ongoing threat’ of ‘further abusive discovery requests’ that would ‘intimidate [her] for her lawful expression.’

As a result, she demanded a protective order to block Lively from subpoenaing her private information again, and also requested sanctions against the actress.

Two days earlier, Lively’s legal team had informed the court of the decision to withdraw subpoenas involving Neidigh and two other creators.

Another letter dated July 27 and obtained by the Daily Mail was written by Kassidy O’Connell, who represented herself as a ‘Jane Doe’ and said she was among ’43 content creators’ subpoenaed in ‘bulk’ by Lively’s legal team.

O’Connell, who posts under the name @kassidyoc, criticized the ‘wholesale, warehouse-style subpoena.’

They urged the judge not to approve Lively’s motion to ‘deny the Third-Parties’ Motions to Quash as moot,’ as it could allegedly help the actress avoid judicial review while also ‘appear[ing] on the court record as a ruling in her favor.’

Lively remains locked in a court feud with Baldoni, her former It Ends With Us costar and director, whom she accused of sexual harassment and retaliation. Baldoni has vehemently denied her claims.

The now-withdrawn subpoenas were sent to Google and X (formerly Twitter) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and requested personal data from creators Kassidy O’Connell, McKenzie Folks and Neidigh. 

The content creators pushed back at the time, with O’Connell writing to the court, ‘There is no evidence or sound legal basis whatsoever to have issued this subpoena in the first place,’ and calling the broader effort a ‘witch hunt for discovery.’

Neidigh echoed the sentiment, describing the subpoena as ‘unduly burdensome,’ and accusing Lively’s team of attempting to ‘harass’ and ‘intimidate’ small creators. 

The subpoenas reportedly requested sensitive information, including credit card and bank account details.

In a letter submitted to the judge on July 26, Lively’s attorneys stated: ‘Based on the Third-Parties’ representations made in meet and confers, public statements, and/or information provided in their moving papers, there is no further information required from the Subpoenas as to these specific Third-Parties at this time.’ They continued, ‘Ms. Lively has therefore withdrawn the Subpoenas as to them.’

While Lively’s legal team is no longer pursuing these three individuals, they made it clear that the broader investigation into the online smear campaign allegedly orchestrated by Baldoni’s team is ongoing.

The letter highlighted a text message allegedly sent by someone affiliated with Baldoni’s PR effort that described plans for an ‘untraceable’ digital media campaign to discredit Lively.

Lively’s rep previously explained to Us Weekly: ‘Subpoenas are not accusations of wrongdoing. They are tools for gathering admissible evidence in federal court. There is no silencing of content creators, they are obviously making their views known. This is a sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit against Justin Baldoni and a number of other Wayfarer defendants and we are simply seeking information to aid in our fact gathering.’

Her spokesperson further emphasized: ‘Remember [Baldoni’s crisis PR rep’s] own words: to shield Justin Baldoni from the possibility that Blake Lively might publicly reveal he sexually harassed her and others, [Baldoni’s rep] planned an “untraceable” media campaign designed to “bury” Ms. Lively. The subpoenas to social media companies are one piece of the puzzle to connect the evidentiary dots of a campaign that was designed to leave no fingerprints.’

Lively’s lawyers have also sent subpoenas to outspoken critics of hers, including  Perez Hilton and Candace Owens. 

Lively recent sat for a deposition at her attorneys’ office on July 31. He sworn testimony was shaken up when Baldoni made a surprise appearance to watch the proceedings.

The case is set to proceed to trial on March 9, 2026, where both sides will finally have their day in court.

Last week, Folks, one of the small creators that weighed in on the Lively–Justin legal saga, opened up to Variety about her experience.

‘It’s baffling,’ the stay-at-home mom admitted. ‘I never talked to anybody in the industry. I’m from Kansas.’ 

She continued: ‘I feel like I’m in The Twilight Zone . . . This is totally a scene out of a movie — some millionaire actress coming after someone. It’s very daunting.’  

John Genga, who represents entertainment journalist Kjersti Flaa, claimed to the outlet that Lively’s subpoenas were ‘designed to intimidate these people, many of whom don’t have the means to fight it.’ 

‘They’re just offering their opinions like anyone else has the right to do,’ the attorney stated. ‘We think it’s invasive.’

Meanwhile, a spokesperson for Lively insisted that the subpoenas were not intended to silence content creators.