Gwyneth Paltrow skiing testimony somehow drags Jimmy Kimmel and Taylor Swift into the Goop

Gwyneth Paltrow is in the midst of one of the odder performances of her career this week, as the Oscar winner took the stand in a Utah court room today to testify in the skiing-based civil trial she’s currently embroiled in. Across hours of testimony, the questioning got what we can only think of as “Goop Weird,” including references to her “friendship” with Taylor Swift, accusations of colorblindness against a witness, and one of the few times (as far as we know) that Jimmy Kimmel banter has ever been used as potential evidence in a court of law.

The latter was brought up by attorney Kristin VanOrman, who’s trying to prove that Paltrow ran into her client, 70-something Terry Sanderson, on a Utah ski slope in 2016—and not the other way around, as the Paltrow camp is attempting to assert. The bit of Kimmel show dialogue in question was apparently a clip in which Paltrow said that she was “always running into things.”

At the core of the argument—which sees Paltrow counter-sue Sanderson for $1, plus what are likely to be very hefty attorney fees—is a basic question of who hit who. (Sanderson says Paltrow collided with him, causing, per Deadline, “several broken ribs and a brain injury from the alleged blow.”) The only eyewitness to come forward appears to have been a guy named Craig Ramone, who Paltrow has all but accused of lying on the stand, saying he was “40 feet away” from the incident, “and color blind.”


Paltrow says Sanderson collided with her from behind, causing her to wonder in the moment if it was some kind of attempt at sexual assault, saying that “he was making some strange noises that sounded male.” Paltrow made it clear in her testimony today that she quickly dismissed the idea that Sanderson had nefarious reasons for the collision. (Although she still certainly contends that he hit her, not the other way around.)

Meanwhile, the Swift stuff barely makes sense, even in context: VanOrman brought it up in relation to Swift’s own $1-in-damages court case from a few years back, against radio host David Mueller, asking Paltrow if she’d taken inspiration from Swift’s choice of damages. Paltrow said she and Swift are merely “friendly,” and not actually “good friends,” and that they don’t talk regularly ; VanOrman then apparently brought up a Goop ad in which Paltrow appeared to be sending Swift a vibrator as a gift, but a hateful judge who doesn’t want us to understand this stupid world we find ourselves trapped in cut her off before we could find out why.


Paltrow’s kids, Apple and Moses, and husband, Brad Falchuk, are expected to also testify in the trial; the plaintiff has attempted to make a case that Paltrow was distracted by her kids when the incident happened, although the actor denies it. Sanderson is suing for $300,000 (down from an initial multi-million pursuit) to cover costs from his injuries.