Kevin Costner Slams Bombshell Sex Lawsuit for 'Bold-Faced Lies'

Major twist in the Kevin Cosner legal. drama. Months after a stuntwoman accused. the actor and his production team of. sexual harassment and misconduct on set, the actor he's firing back, calling the. allegations patently false, a boldface. lie, and says he's got the proof to back. it up. We are breaking down Cosner's new. legal filings, trying to throw out this. whole lawsuit, and we are bringing on. the perfect person to discuss this, California trial attorney Nema Romani. Welcome to Sidebar presented by Law and.

Crime. I'm Jesse Weber. [Music]. Okay, we got this major update in the. Kevin Cosner legal case that we talked. about several months ago, right? So, the. Stars attorneys have filed paperwork to. throw out the sexual harassment, discrimination, and retaliation lawsuit. against him. Now, before I get into this. latest development, if you're not. familiar with the story, quick overview. of the case. We talked about this, by. the way, more in depth on a previous. episode of Sidebar. You can check it. out. It's up on Long Crimes YouTube.

page. We're talking about Devin Labella, a 34 year old professional stunt. performer with a long resume who filed a. lawsuit in California against producer, director, actor Kevin Cosner, Horizon. Series, Inc., Horizon Series 2 LLC, and. Territory Pictures, Inc. Now, LeBella is. suing for various causes of actions or. claims like sex discrimination, creation. of a hostile work environment, sexual. harassment, breach of contract. And she.

claims that in May of 2023 while filming. the movie Horizon 2 out in Utah, she was. asked to quote stand in for a lead. actress Ella Hunt. And this was during. what she claims is an unscheduled and. unscripted scene. and she alleges that. Cosner directed a violent simulated rape. scene without notice, without. choreography, and without the presence. of an intimacy coordinator. So, you're.

talking numerous allegations here that. this was a violation of SAG after rules, namely that you need to provide 48 hours. notice for these kinds of scenes, that. the set wasn't closed, that the scene. was allegedly broadcast on monitors for. the entire crew to witness, that. LeBella's underwear was exposed with her. even menrating at the time. Oh, and. there's also the claim that the main. actress, again, Hunt, had reportedly. refused to perform this particular. scene. And Labella says she was unaware.

of this when asked to quote stand in. And there is what she claims happened. afterward. She alleges that she was. blamed, that she was blamed by male. coordinators, told to stay in her. trailer, was not rehired for Horizon 3, and she has claimed that she has been. blacklisted from other projects by key. crew members. So, she is suing for a. lot. She is suing for compensatory. impunitive damages, attorneys fees, a. court-ordered apology from defendants,

mandatory harassment training, intimacy. coordination on future productions. All. that's the background. So, what just. happened? Well, the legal team for Kevin. Cosner and the other defendants, they. filed quite the response, and we want to. get into it. So, it's called this. memorandum in support of a motion to. strike the entire complaint under. California law. This anti-slap. provision, which I'll talk about, but. the way this starts is with an apparent.

text message from Labella. Quote, "Thank. you for these wonderful weeks. I so. appreciate you. I learned so much and. thank you again. I'm really happy it. worked out the way it did, too. have a. great rest of the shoot and yes, talk. soon. And then there's the hearts. smiling face emoji and the heart clasped. hands emoji. This is what plainif Devon. Lebella texted to her supervisor just 9. days after allegedly suffering a. humiliating traumatic experience on the.

set of a major motion picture for which. he was employed as a professional stunt. person and for which he now seeks. millions of dollars in damages. There. was no anger or resentment, only. enthusiasm and gratitude. The reality is. supported by the sworn testimony of a. dozen respected veteran film crew. members with personal knowledge of the. facts at issue in this dispute. Real-time photographs of the shot in. question and Labella's own words at the. time is that Labella's opportunistic and. salacious lawsuit is just as fictional.

as the motion picture at the center of. this dispute. Now, we've been following. this Kevin Cosner story. We're going to. continue to follow it. And one of the. reasons we can do that is because of the. incredible support that we get from our. sponsor, One Skin. So, let me ask you. something. Have you heard about this? Have you heard about One Skin's scalp. serum, the OS1 hair? People are raving. about this. If you're familiar with One. Skin, you know about their patented OS1. peptide, how it's scientifically proven. to target aging at the cellular level. It's what powers their skin and sunare.

Well, now it's targeting age related. hair loss and thinning. So, listen to. this. People are sending in reviews. like, "My hair has never felt this thick. and full. My scalp feels healthier than. ever, and I started three months ago and. I'm seeing new little hairs in my scalp. line." One customer even wrote, "I've. tried everything for hair growth and. finally I'm getting a response from my. hair." And it's not just talk. One Skin. Scientist, they did a clinical study. showing that after 6 months, participants had significantly thicker. and denser hair. And that's one of the. things that I really love about One. Skin, it's the science. Their OS1.

peptide is the same one that's also. behind their cult favorite skin line. So, I was thrilled to hear that they. also have this product to support hair. longevity at the root. Literally, literally, by the way, I care about. that. So, OnSkin is the world's first. skin longevity company by focusing on. the cellular aspects of aging. One Skin. keeps your skin looking and acting. younger for longer. So, for a limited. time, you can try OneSkin with 15% off. using code sidebar at onskin.co. That's 15% off oneskin.co with code.

sidebar. And after you purchase, they're. going to ask you where you heard about. them. Please support sidebar and make. sure to tell them that we sent you. So. basically, Cosner and the other. defendant entities are calling her. allegations factually incorrect and that. her claims are meritless. First, there. is an argument that they say no rape. scene was scripted or filmed. that the. film includes off-screen depictions of. two violent rapes as part of the. narrative, but no actual rape scene was.

filmed or scripted, that Labella's. complaint centers on a single unfilmed. quote pickup shot that was rehearsed or. blocked with her involvement. Second, they say that the disputed shot involved. an actor, Roger Ivans, lifting the hem. of Lebella's dress from ankle to knee, but that Labella was fully clothed under. her dress, wearing multiple layers, including pedicodes, panaloons, and bike. shorts. That there was no nudity, there.

was no struggle, there was no simulated. sex involved in any of this. That this. lasted only a few seconds and it wasn't. filmed. And they argue that Labella. consented after the stunt coordinator. explained the scene to her with. witnesses reporting she was smiling and. laughing and gave thumbs up during the. rehearsal. So from there, Cosner argues. that the next day, Leella expressed. discomfort to a production assistant. director and she reportedly said that.

she was upset not because of the scene. itself, but because she was on her. period and was afraid someone saw her. underwear. She allegedly continued to. work for another week with no signs of. distress and even took her supervisors. out to dinner to thank them. And they. also say that in a postshoot text, she. allegedly thanked her coordinator for. these wonderful weeks. Now, Cosner also. highlights Hela has no competent or. admissible evidence to support her. claims and that they can cite multiple.

witnesses and multiple declarations. stating that the scene was harmless and. consensual. Now, let me get into the law. a little bit, the legal argument. So the. main idea from Kevin Cosner and the. other defendants is that Labella's. claims arise from protected creative. activity related to the making of this. film, which is constitutionally. protected speech under the First. Amendment. That the lawsuit should be. struck under California's anti-SLAP. statute because it targets conduct in.

furtherance of public interest. expression. In other words, storytelling. about historical trauma and violence. That's what we're talking about. That. the anti-SLAP law protects free speech. by stopping people from using the legal. system as a weapon to chill speech to. silence others when they're talking. about matters of public interest. And. I'm going to expand upon that because. they argue that they have satisfied two. prongs of the required legal test here. One, they say there is in fact protected.

activity, and two, they argue that the. burden shifts to Labella to show a. likelihood of success on each of her. claims and that she can't do it. So they. argue all of her claims stem again from. this single block camera shot, that this. is a part of a film direction, that this. is part of acting, that this is clearly. expressive activity, that it is free. speech, that is protected under the. First Amendment, that her other claims. like not being rehired for Horizon 3,

that's about casting decisions, not. retaliation, and casting decisions is a. protective, creative decision. They also. argue she wasn't actually assaulted, that the blocking of a nonsexual scene. was part of the film making process. Now, what about to the argument of this. is a matter of public interest and it's. protected. Well, the argument is you. have a film that is dealing with serious. historical themes, including the. vulnerability of women during westward. expansion, that the Horizon Project is.

widely covered in the media, and you got. Kevin Coer involved. He is a. high-profile star and his status makes. the project and this lawsuit newsworthy. So, the media tension and the public. interest surrounding both the film and. the lawsuit, the argument is further. solidify that this is a public issue. under anti-slap standards and it's. protected. So, all in all, the main idea is that. LeBella's lawsuit is an attempt to. suppress or punish protected creative.

expression. And because her claims arise. from protected activity and failed to. meet the legal threshold for moving. forward under the anti-slap statute, they asked the court to strike the. complaint. But then we go into the next. part that label can't show a probability. of success. And they break it down cause. of action by cause of action, count by. count. So let's go through it. Counts. one through four are sexual. discrimination, harassment, and hostile. work environment. The defendants argue. that all four claims are based on that.

single event, you know, the blocking of. that simulated rape scene. And remember. when Lebella claims that she was. directed to perform without prior notice. or consent, they argue she doesn't. allege any job benefit was tied to her. participation, that she wasn't. threatened, that she consented after the. shot was explained. And in terms of. hostile work environment, there was no. pervasive or severe conduct that was. alleged that a single incident, especially one that was allegedly. consented to and involved no nudity or.

actual sex doesn't meet that legal. burden, that legal threshold, that she. wasn't targeted for her gender, she. wasn't injured, that she didn't express. any concern at the time. That's their. allegations. That's their narrative. That she allegedly thanked her. supervisor and continued working. afterward. meaning these actions are. inconsistent with someone who perceived. a real hostile environment. Count five, failure to prevent discrimination and. harassment. The defendants argue that if. there was no actionable harassment, then.

this claim automatically fails. Right? Labella's employer had standard. anti-harassment policies, which she. received. They argue, they say there was. no nudity, there was no sex, so there. was no requirement for extra precautions. like an intimacy coordinator or a closed. set. So it seems like they're actually. maybe fighting that point. And when the. plainif finally did raise concerns, they. argue they were reported and they were. investigated appropriately per the.

proper guidelines and procedure. Count. six and eight, retaliation and. intentional interference. So they argue. there was no evidence of retaliation. against her, that she continued working. after raising her concerns, that she was. praised and invited to continue, and not. being hired for Horizon 3 isn't. retaliation. The character that she. doubled for isn't in the sequel, that. the supervisor simply really didn't have. a reason to rehire her, as with many. other stunt performers. And finally,

they argue there's no causation. There's. no causal link between her accusations, her complaints, and the alleged harm, meaning not being hired again. Now, when. it comes to count seven, this is a Bane. Act violation. So, threats, intimidation, or coercion, they argue. that doesn't exist here. That Labella. doesn't point to any threatening words. or actions. that she may claim that she. felt pressured to Cosner's authority,

but there's no evidence of actual. intimidation or coercion, that the Bane. Act violation requires something more. than perceived authority, requires. threats or actions implying violence, which are absent here. Then you have. breach of contract. So this is count 11. And they argue, wait a minute, there's. no specific contract provision that was. breached. That labella failed to point. to a contract term that was violated. That she references someone else's. contract, right? Miss Hunts, the one she. was standing in for, but she herself.

isn't a party to that contract or a. beneficiary to that contract, that her. own contract didn't require the specific. precautions she now claims were missing. And they also say there was not a nudity. or sex scene. So the SAG after. provisions for such scenes don't apply. And then you also have count 10, intentional infliction of emotional. distress. The defendants argue there was. no outrageous conduct which is required. under this claim. That blocking a scene. with prior explanation and consent is.

not conduct that quote exceeds all. bounds of decency. That there was no. intent to cause harm. That the plainif. was informed and agreed to participate. that there was no severe emotional. distress, that Labella allegedly. continued working, that she went out to. dinner with her supervisor, and she. expressed gratitude. And one more thing. we got to talk about is another filing. from Kevin Cosner, too. Actually, it is. a declaration from Kevin Coer. And what. does he say right in this document?

Here's a sample. Devon's claims against. me are absolutely false. And it is. deeply disappointing to me that a woman. who worked on our production would claim. that I or any other member of my. production team would make one of our. own feel uncomfortable, let alone suffer. the nightmare she has invented. My. belief is that Devon's claims were. designed through the use of false. statements and sensationalistic language. to damage my reputation. These. allegations are so patently false, I can.

only assume that the purpose was to use. this sensationalistic language to. embarrass and damage me and the Horizon. movies on an ongoing basis in order to. gain a massive and unjustified payday. Equally as bad, having to read about and. address allegations I know to be false. involving the words rape and assault has. been an absolute nightmare. The truth. matters. That's why even at the high. cost of this lawsuit, financial and. personal, I will always speak up to.

defend myself and my crew against false. allegations. I have worked with many on. this crew before and know they care. deeply about each other and the. important stories we tell. They, like. me, do not deserve to have their. reputations impugned by opportunists. making false claims. Yeah. So Kevin. Cosner calls Abella's claims of being. forced into this unscripted rape scene. patently false, a bold-faced lie, a. blatant lie designed to damage his. reputation and the Horizon films. And he. asserts that the contested moment was.

not a simulated rape, but rather quote. one artistic shot designed to imply what. was going to happen offcreen. And as. part of this filing, Cosner submitted. photographs from the set that allegedly. show Labella smiling and appearing at. ease during rehearsals. It is being. reported that other crew members filed. declarations backing up what Cosner. said. And Cosner also apparently. highlights a positive text message that.

Labella sent afterward expressing. gratitude for the experience. Quote, "Thank you for these wonderful weeks.". That text. All right, I want to bring on. right now renowned California attorney. uh litigator, former prosecutor, trial. attorney Nema Romani. Nema, thanks so. much for coming on. What are your. thoughts uh on this this filing? And by. the way, what exactly does it mean that. they're trying to strike this on. antislap grounds? Jesse, under. California law, you can strike a lawsuit.

using this anti-SLAP statute, and that. really stands for strategic lawsuit. against public policy. And what happens. in these types of cases when you're. dealing with an artist, they will argue. that the lawsuit infringes upon the. First Amendment. And the argument is. this. This is an artistic scene. Even. though it's a rape scene, it's a sexual. assault, this is something that you. agreed to do. Uh, this is something. that's covered by the SAG contract.

There's an intimacy coordinator there. and you can't raise this type of. argument because it violates the First. Amendment. So, procedurally, it's. important because it puts the lawsuit on. hold. You can't conduct any discovery. And if the defense wins, the plainif in. this case has to pay the attorney fees. And even if they lose, the decision to. deny the slap motion is immediately. appealable. So again, puts the case on. hold while the case goes up to the court.

of appeal. >> Is this a strong argument here? Because. what you have are two radically. different narratives about whether or. not what the scene was about and what. happened. Um, do you think that the. court would dismiss it at this stage? I. don't think it's a strong argument, but. I got to tell you, Jesse, because we. represent plaintiffs in these types of. cases. I have seen judges consider this, dismiss maybe part of the case, some of. the allegations. It allows the defense. to go up on appeal, put the case on.

hold, make the lawyers incur more cost. So, it is strategic. Do I think the case. is going to be dismissed entirely? Absolutely not. Because even a text. message that the plaintiff sent isn't. dispositive. That's more of a question. for the jury, but it can absolutely. delay things and it's a strong strategic. move by Kevin Coer in the. >> One of the things they say is there's no. evidence, right? They have no She said. they say she has no evidence to back up. her claims. But again, isn't that too. premature? Doesn't that come down to.

this is litigation, this is discovery. You don't have to put all the evidence. to prove your claims at this point in. the case. Well, her own words are. certainly her evidence and them saying. that they don't have a contemporaneous. complaint, that doesn't necessarily mean. that the harassment didn't happen. Right? Often times victims, especially. when there's a power disparity, especially here in Hollywood, right? We've seen it time and time again where, let's say even in a Harvey Weinstein. case, right? Someone maintains contact.

with their abuser. I'm not saying that. allegations have any merit, but that's. really more of a question of fact for. the jury, not necessarily something that. the judge is going to rule on as a. matter of law. One of the things they. talk about a lot is that she can't show. a probability of success, and they break. down each cause of action, each count. about why she wouldn't be able to show. that. Do you agree? >> Again, I'm a plaintiff's lawyer, so I. don't agree, but this is what the. defense does all the time. They don't.

want this case to go anywhere near a. jury. I'm telling you this right now and. I'll call it. If it's not dismissed at. the slap stage, if it's not dismissed on. summary judgement, the case is going to. settle. Kevin Cosner is not going to. want to have to litigate a case like. this. He's got bigger fish to fry. So, what the lawyers do is try to get the. case knocked out by the judge before the. jury part of the case. And if not, we'll. probably see some sort of mediation in. the settlement. He provided a.

declaration as part of this filing and. it's quite the declaration. I was. reading parts of it before basically. saying this is a blatant lie. How it's. been a nightmare may been a nightmare. These allegations are absolutely false. Why did he put that declaration in there. and do you think it was important for. him to put that declaration in there? >> Jesse, sometimes things are done from. the courtroom and sometimes they're done. for the court of public opinion. And. often times in these types of cases, the. best defense is a good offense. You want. to come out strong. Let the plaintiff.

know that this isn't going to be a quick. settlement. This isn't something that's. going to resolve uh by a demand letter. or a mediation shortly after filing. Now. that you've made these very serious. accusations and they're all public and. Costar's reputation is tarnished, he's. going to dig in his heels and he wants. to send a message to the plainif or a. lawyer, but the public that he is not a. predator. That's why that declaration. was in there. >> And he submitted these photographs from.

the set. The argument would be it shows. that label is smiling. She's appearing. at ease during these rehearsals. Do you. think that's significant? I think it is. significant. There's a couple things. that really come into play in a lot of. these cases. And we talked about. Weinstein, we talked about Diddy. And. again, those are very different cases. They're criminal cases. But I think what. is important and what jurors want to see. is a contemporaneous report. Right? If. you're being harassed, you go to HR, you. tell a friend, you tell a coworker. If. you raise the allegations years later,

that's not to say it didn't happen, but. it does play into the defense that this. is all fabricated because of money, because of fame, because of revenge. The other thing I think that is. important is what we've already seen, those text messages. If there are. communications with the abuser, with. folks on Cosner's team, and they don't. raise any of these, and in fact, they're. the opposite. they show someone who's. happy. Again, that still is not.

inconsistent with the harassment or the. abuse happening, but again, makes the. case much more challenging to prove. And. it doesn't matter if you're a prosecutor. or a civil plaintiff's lawyer. >> And the idea, this allegation that there. are other people, other crew members. that have filed declar declarations. backing up Kevin Coer couldn't, you. know, 100% confirm that that seems to be. what is being reported on. That would be. significant for him. >> It is obviously. Look, you know, it's. not a numbers game. It's not like we. have more witnesses on one side versus. the other. There's a juror instruction.

that says you're not supposed to do. that. But if you have witness after. witness saying, "Hey, I was on set and. even according to the plainif herself, there was approximately 100 people on. set and they say none of this happened.". That's going to be a very difficult case. to prove. Now, of course, the pliff will. argue that look, these are people on. Cosner's payroll. They have a reason to. lie. They're loyal to him. Otherwise, they'll lose their job. But if you have. witness after witness saying the same. thing, this is the type of case that. could go sideways really quickly for the.

victim. >> Nemo Romani, thank you so much. Appreciate it. >> Of course, Jesse, thanks for having me. as always. >> All right, everybody. That's all we have. for you right now here on Sidebar. Thank. you so much for joining us and as. always, please subscribe on YouTube, Apple Podcast, Spotify, wherever you. should get your podcasts. I'm Jesse. Weber. I'll speak to you next time. [Music].