Kevin Hart’s Sex Tape BOMBSHELL Could Explode in Civil Trial

I don't know if you've been following. Kevin Hart's legal drama, but in a. lawsuit against his former assistant, it. is now being reported that the woman he. allegedly had a sex tape with [music]. may be called to testify in this case. So, we're going to break down the. lawsuit, the claims, [music] the. defenses, and this news about who could. potentially be a bombshell witness. Welcome to Sidebar, [music] presented by. Law and Crime. I'm Jesse Weber. Okay, I got some Kevin Hart legal drama. and I'll be honest with you, I didn't.

even know this was going on. Then I see. this headline, which I'm going to get. into. And I go back, I look into this. case, I look into the lawsuit, and now. I'm like, we got to talk about it. So, let me start with this. There is a woman. who apparently appeared in a sex tape. with the comedian and actor who may be. called to testify in an ongoing lawsuit. between him and his former assistant. Now, you might be saying, "Wait a. second. What is going on here? Right? Totally normal. That's what I thought. That's what I want to get into. So, here's the history. Montia Sabag sued.

Kevin Hart back in 2019 for millions and. millions of dollars over allegations. that he secretly filmed her having sex. without her permission. Hart denied the. claims, denied the allegations, and the. case was ultimately thrown out. Reportedly, it was thrown out on. procedural grounds, dismissed. Then Hart. filed a lawsuit against his former. personal assistant, Misha Shakes. And in. an amended complaint, Hart claims that. while working for him, she was privy to.

all sorts of personal and confidential. information about him, his family, his. friends, his businesses, and so forth. Now, the complaint claims that Shakes. signed a confidentiality agreement in. 2017, which would prohibit her from. speaking about this kind of information, from disclosing it. You fast forward. three years, so now 2020. The complaint. claims that Shakes, Hart, and his. businesses entered into a mutual release. and non-disclosure agreement and that. Hart agreed to pay her $30,000 a year. for three years. Seemingly, there was.

some sort of resignation. In a similar. fashion, the agreement requires Shakes. not to disclose private and confidential. information about him, his family, and. the related companies. Then you go to. around November 2023 and this is where. Hart claims that Shakes sat down for an. interview with Latasha Transina Kibi. And in that interview, this is I'm going. to read verbatim from the complaint. Quote, Shakes made various statements. regarding Hart, his family, and. heartbeat personnel and/or employees of.

other heart affiliated entities. Notwithstanding the truth or falsity of. any such statements, kind of defamatory. language there, Shakes would only have. had knowledge regarding such subjects as. a result of her employment with heart. and heartbeat. Such information. necessarily would have constituted. confidential information as defined by. the NDA, such as information regarding. alleged personal relationships affecting. the employment status of personnel at. Hart affiliated companies and subjects. such as Hart's interactions with his. family members. The interview also.

included false and defamatory statements. regarding Hart and certain legal. disputes in which he had been involved. During the interview, Ki asked Shakes. whether she was subject to any. non-disclosure agreements which would. have prohibited her from disclosing the. type of information that was the subject. of the interview. Shakes acknowledged. that she and plaintiffs were in fact. parties to the NDA. Then this is in the. complaint. Hart claims that someone. called his representative to tell them. about the interview, saying there were. things that were said in that interview.

that would damage Hart's reputation and. that this person said KBI would publish. the interview unless Hart paid what is. referred to in the complaint as a ransom. of $250,000. Now you go to November 17, 2023. The. complaint claims that a teaser of this. interview was published online. quote, "This is from the complaint wherein she. along with Shakes touted the supposedly. salacious and damaging nature of the. interview." The teaser video clearly was. intended as a threat to Hart that the.

more detailed interview would be. published if the ransom was not paid. The teaser included a statement from Ki. at the 206 mark of the video, specifically warning that quote, "When. you don't pay, we have to get money by. any means necessary." So from there, Hart claims that he and his team. contacted the police, that they didn't. pay the ransom. Then Hart's attorney, Dante Mills, who I know, I've. interviewed him in the past many times, apparently wrote to Ki in a cease and. desist letter telling Ki not to publish.

the interview. But in the end, according. to Hart, it appears that Ki did publish. the interview nonetheless and allegedly. charge viewers a monthly subscription. fee. I gotta be honest about something. We're gonna jump back into this. I don't. know about you, but I put off scheduling. my doctor's appointments. I know I. shouldn't, but like I don't want to deal. with the phone calls, the voicemails, you know, the endless phone tag, and. then when I finally call, the next. opening is like somehow months away. It. always feels harder than it should. And. that is why this episode is sponsored by.

Zachdoc. So, Zach is a free app and. website that lets you search and compare. high quality in-et network doctors. They. show reviews from real patients and the. detailed doctor profile. So, you can. compare options and choose the doctor. that best fits your preferences. You. know what's great about ZDOC is that you. can see actual appointment openings and. click to book without all the phone. calls and back and forth. And look, you. can make so many of your appointments. right now through Zakdoc. And you don't. have to make a single phone call. By the. way, your health matters. Taking care of.

yourself shouldn't be complicated. Find. and book the right doctor with ZDOC. Head on over to zdock.com/jesse. You get started. You check that. appointment off your to-do list. That is. zoocdoc.com/jesse. [music]. So what happens? Hart sue shakes ki. affiliated companies. This is out in Los. Angeles. The causes of action originally. include civil extortion, breach of.

contract, intentional interference with. contractual relations, invasion of. privacy, defamation, suing for all sorts. of damages, including compensatory. damages, which are supposed to restore. you as whole, punitive damages. There. are form of punishment damages, and it. appears there was some back and forth. regarding the status of this lawsuit. So. either there were claims that were. dismissed or the suit in its entirety. was dismissed for procedural reasons. But according to My News LA and our. review of the court records, it seems.

that Kevin Hart's lawsuit was reinstated. and by all accounts appears to be. active. In fact, on September 29th, 2026. in this matter, the court held that the. final status conference in this case was. continued from September 29th to October. 9th. That's tomorrow. and that the. parties had to meet and confer this past. Tuesday, October 6th. And in a separate. filing, it appears that tomorrow there. is going to be a hearing in the court. regarding a media request to photograph.

or record or broadcast seemingly the. proceedings in this case. Now, I should. also tell you that My News LA has. reported that Hart settled his claims. against KBI separately. So, it appears. that all that's left is his case against. Shakes, which brings me to Shakes. Well, first I found this on InTouch Weekly, which reports that in a sworn. declaration, Shakes had reportedly. claimed she didn't know about or maybe. understand the terms of the NDA,

reportedly saying, quote, "At the time. of signing the NDA, I was suffering from. significant mental health issues and was. under considerable financial distress. due to my unemployment. Hart was fully. aware of my ongoing health issues and. critical need for health insurance and. funds as I could not afford health. insurance or my prescribed medications. Put that to the side. I also have this. So Misha Shakes appears to have filed an. opening statement with the court which. appears to be what her opening statement. would be to a jury. I say her because it.

seems that she's representing herself in. this. Now it says in part, quote, "My. name is Misha Shakes. I am the defendant. in this case and I'm representing. myself. The evidence will address the. alleged agreement, the parties to that. agreement, the circumstances surrounding. it, the obligations the plaintiffs. contend existed, and whether the. plaintiffs can establish that those. obligations were breached. You will also. hear evidence concerning my former. employment, communications between the. parties, and records relating to that. employment. I ask that you pay close.

attention to the actual documents, the. dates, the circumstances in which. communications occurred and the. testimony concerning those events. You. will also hear evidence concerning. defamation. That evidence will concern. statements that the plaintiffs contend. were made, and the circumstances. surrounding those statements. You'll be. asked to consider what was actually. said, who made the statement, the. context in which it was made, and the. evidence relating to whether the legal. requirements for a defamation claim have. been established. You will also hear. evidence concerning invasion of privacy. and public disclosure of private facts.

That portion of the case will involve. evidence concerning information the. plaintiffs contend was private and. improperly disclosed. You'll be asked to. consider the nature of the information, the circumstances surrounding any. alleged disclosure, and whether the. evidence satisfies the legal. requirements the judge gives you for. those claims. It goes on to say, "My. role during this trial will be to. present my evidence and defenses and to. challenge the evidence offered against. me were appropriate. At the conclusion. of the evidence, the judge will give you. instructions explaining the law that. applies to the claims you must decide.

You will then apply those instructions. to the facts as you determine them from. the evidence. At that point, I will have. an opportunity to explain in closing. argument why I believe the evidence does. not establish the plaintiff's claims. But today is only the beginning of the. trial. I'm asking you to keep an open. mind, listen carefully to every witness, examine the admitted evidence, and wait. until you have heard the entire case, and received the court's instructions. before deciding any issue. This now. brings me to the main topic of this. episode, right, the witness list. This. has been filed again, seemingly from.

Miss Shakes. And one of the potential. witnesses listed here includes the. person I mentioned before, Montia Sabag. In that filing, Shakes writes, quote, expected testimony, matters within her. personal knowledge concerning the. September 2017 Las Vegas incident, the. alleged recording of her private. encounter, whether she knew of or. consented to the recording, communication she personally received or. participated in, the subsequent. investigation and civil litigation, and. matters contained in her sworn. declaration to the extent admissible and.

permitted by the court. So, this is the. point where I bring in my good friend, litigator Rich Showenstein to try to. make sense of everything that we're. seeing. Rich, good to see you. Thanks uh. for taking the time. We'll talk about. all aspects of this. And I'm also. interested if KB is called as a witness, but I have to start with this idea of. this woman who had made claims in the. past that Kevin Hart secretly recorded. her. She potentially being called as a. witness here by Shakes. Why? What's the. motivation there? Why would she want her.

to be a potential witness in this case? What do you think? >> Well, I think she wants to assassinate. Kevin Hart's character by bringing on. this uh this woman who had claims. against him in the past and bringing all. of that into the case. I think that's. what she wants to do. The the claim, as. I read it, is that the the explanation, I should say, is that he won't have any. damages to, you know, like the. defamation part of the case because his. character has been attacked in the past.

He's been shown in the past to be a bad. person. So, they want to allude to this. prior event to show that. But I think. it's just it's pretty much just. character assassination. >> Or is it to try to validate whatever she. had allegedly said in her interview. about Kevin Hart? If she had referenced. or made, you know, points about this his. alleged relationship with SAG or this. this this allegation of secretly. recording, that would have been to show, hey, I was telling the truth. If if she.

did talk about that specifically on the. podcast and wants to establish the. truthfulness of that, then yes, I think. that could be a justification for it. That would probably be the best. justification for it, actually. By the. way, is it typical to file a witness. list like this, the way she did? >> So, courts do it a lot of different. ways. Usually, before trial, the parties. have to exchange lists of their. witnesses in one fashion or another. Sometimes you file them in the court, sometimes you just exchange them. I. gather this was the procedure in the.

California court where this trial is. happening, but you do exchange witness. lists. >> The fact that this is now headlines and. you have to imagine Kevin Hart might. want to take this fully to trial, but if. this woman's bag becomes a witness and. the court allows her to testify, is that. going to put more pressure on him to. settle this? >> It could conceivably. One of the reasons. you exchange a witness list is so the. parties can bring to bear any arguments. they have about whether these witnesses. should testify. So presumably Kevin. Hart's council can make an objection and.

say this is too far removed. It's too. prejuditial. It doesn't really have. anything to do with this dispute. We she. shouldn't be able to call this witness. And that can be confronted by the judge. prior to the trial beginning. Now I want. to go into this other aspect of it. Uh I. mentioned this before. It appears from. our research into this that his claims. against the podcast host who has been I. believe referred to as Tasha Kay, Miss. Kibi, those have been settled. Let's.

assume for a moment there was a. settlement. It's done. She's on the. witness list too. She's on Shakes's. witness list. How does that work? Can. you call who was originally your. codefendant in a litigation, but then. her claims were settled privately? I. mean, we don't know the circumstances of. that settlement. How could she be called. to testify? What could she say? It is it. conflicted by this potential private. settlement with Kevin Hart? >> No, it it that happens all the time. If. you think about it, there are a lot of. multiple defendant cases where the where. the question is which defendant is.

liable or sometimes in different. proportions. One defendant's 60% liable, one defendant's 40. So if there's a. settlement with one defendant, the other. defendant can still call them as a. witness in order to pass the blame. It's. not my fault. It's the fault of this. witness who settled. Now, I don't know. if that's the point of calling the. podcaster as a witness. I don't know if. that's what they're going to, but that. would be permissible in most.

circumstances. I want to ask you just. generally, taking a step back, what do. you make of his lawsuit? Like the. strengths of it, the weaknesses of it. that you see? Because when I read it, if. you take his allegations as true, to me, there's there's an argument. It seems. pretty straightforward. if she had. signed a confidentiality or an NDA and. then spoke about her experiences with. Kevin Hart and and referenced these. allegations about a sex tape, which we. don't know for sure. We don't know. These were allegations. Isn't she in.

breach? Isn't this a clear-cut case or. am I looking at it the wrong way? >> No, I think you're on to something. So, when when I first looked at this case, the initial thing I thought is he's. suing his former assistant like like why. is he doing that? Right? That seems like. punching down in a way that you don't. really understand. Okay. The thing that. caught my eye, and I know they threw out. the extortion cause of action, but the. idea that somebody contacted him before. these statements were made and said, "If.

you write us a check for $250,000, we won't do it." That's an important. component of the case because that. indicates that they were trying to get a. financial advantage and when he didn't. relent and do it, they went ahead and. put the information out there. And then. I think you're right, it could be a. clear-cut violation of the. confidentiality agreement, which is. something pretty standard that that. celebrities. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Not just.

celebrities, really. anybody of any. means who has other people in their life. that know personal information have. those kind of agreements to prevent. these kind of things and um so I think. there you know it could be a meritorious. lawsuit and it's interesting because you. see celebrities have these agreements. and it and to be clear it's not to hide. something nefarious right it's you know. the public persona they're these people. are around them learning private. information about their lives they're. public figures you wouldn't want that. getting out for potential safety.

reasons, but also they have a. reputation. >> Well, it's not just it's a reputation. Look, if you have a assistant, that. assistant might know your account. numbers. That assistant knows stuff. about your family. If you have children, they know stuff about your children. >> You don't want them releasing any of. that. You don't want them talking about. your personal life publicly for any. reason. And and it's perfectly. reasonable to have that kind of. agreement. Employees in all sorts of. companies in all sorts of occupations.

routinely sign confidentiality. agreements where they agree to keep. their employers information confidential. and no reason not to have that with. celebrities. Now there was reporting and. I mentioned this before that potentially. what she may argue is there was a mental. health issue that she was in a a state. where she couldn't fully appreciate or. understand the circumstances of the NDA. I don't know if she'll also make an. argument that she was pressured into. signing it. This idea of I guess you.

would say that the agreement was entered. into it's uninforceable. It's invalid. Perhaps there's an element of duress. Do. you think that those are things we might. see? Do you think those things might be. a way that you invalidate the NDA, not. the confidentiality agreement? >> I could see the defendant throwing some. of that into the case. Now, I haven't. seen all of the affirmative defenses. that have been stated. I don't know if. she's going to try to invalidate the. agreement. It's hard in the American. court system to argue that I didn't read. and understand the agreement. The.

American court system assumes if you. sign something and you're an adult that. you read and understood it. It's really. hard to make that argument work. It's. hard to say you were under duress if the. duress was you were going to get paid. good money to have a good job. A lot of. people would like to be Kevin Hart's. assistant. I think she was probably paid. pretty well for that kind of thing. So, is that duress that I had to do this to. do to have the job go of a different.

job? Does it hurt her claim if she's. representing herself? In other words, in. the eyes of a jury, they'd be like, "So, you're making the argument that at that. point in time, you couldn't appreciate. or understand the NDA, but yet you're. representing herself in a legal case.". >> Oh, that's interesting. You know what. I'm saying? Yeah. Yeah. I hadn't thought. I mean I had had the general thought and. you and I have talked about this in a. lot of cases representing yourself is a. terrible horrible no good very bad idea. >> and that's no that's no slight on shakes. nobody should represent. >> nobody should especially at trial she.

doesn't know enough you know you can't. you can't slog through it using AI and. represent yourself at trial she might. get a little sympathy if a jury thinks. oh golly she couldn't even afford a. lawyer we should feel bad for her. She. might garner a little bit of sympathy, but I do the point you just made is an. excellent one that she may demonstrate. she's more sophisticated than she wants. to portray herself. And it would be.

easier to portray herself as. unsophisticated if she doesn't talk as. much, which I have to say, I read the. filings from her and look, I've read. filings from people who have represented. themselves and it's a mess. there was a. level of sophistication here. Now, I I I. actually did think it was interesting. Um, even she she found an opening. statement. Is that typical in the. litigation? I thought I didn't know what. that was about. >> I I haven't really seen that before. I. And and my my supposition was it was. because it's representing herself that.

the court asked her to file this. Typically, you don't file an opening. statement. And by the way, it's not a. very good opening statement. Like that's. not the opening statement I would want. to see be made. Keep your mind open. >> Yeah. Yeah. It's it's a lot of they're. going to be witnesses and please listen. to all the evidence, which all of which. you should say during opening statement, but she doesn't tell her story at all. Yeah. >> She doesn't say why it is she's not. liable, which you want to say opening. statement. >> There was another aspect to this. If you.

take the allegations as true that during. the course of that interview with uh KBI. there was again if this is true there. was an allegation they talked about hey. are you did you sign anything did you. sign an NDA and there was an alleged. acknowledgement yeah I did that would. hurt her claim as well right I mean that. would hurt her defense yes if if they. have her acknowledging that she was. thinking about the NDA while she was. making the statements that are in. violation of the NDA I think that would.

be problematic. But I don't get the. sense that she's going to argue, I. didn't know about the NDA. She might. argue, I was pressured to sign it. I. didn't understand it. >> Yeah. >> But she's not going to say, I didn't. know it was there. >> I I want to show you something else. So. Shakes says that she is going to be a. witness in this witness list. I want to. read you verbatim and for our audience. what it says. Misha Shakes, defendant, witness, defendant's employment with. Heartbeat. her duties as Kevin Hart's. executive assistant, departure from.

Heartbeat, final wages, communications. with Hart, termination of healthc care. coverage, circumstances surrounding the. October 22nd, 2020 agreement, defendants. understanding concerning months of. healthc care coverage, uh, COBRA. payments, the November 2023 interview. with Latasha Kei, the context and. intended meaning of statements made. during that interview, and other matters. personally experienced or observed by. defendant, the statement of facts. expressly identifies the healthcare and. agreement issues. Now in a litigation, right, it's not.

surprising when you see a plainif and. defendant taking the stand, but she. would be representing herself and taking. the stand. How does that work exactly? So it depends on the judge. Typically, if there's a party. representing themsel in civil. litigation, which doesn't happen a lot. because first of all, companies can't. represent themselves. They have to have. a lawyer. And so an individual can, but. they don't usually do it. The judge will.

probably allow her to testify in a. narrative form where she just says what. she wants to. She's not going to have to. ask herself a question and then answer. the question. The court will allow her. to testify narratively. There will be. objections if she wanders off topic or. she, you know, starts testifying about. hearsay or other objectionable evidence. And then the plainif will cross-examine.

her with a lawyer just as. cross-examination would usually take. place. How does it work if this happens? So, if she's cross-examined, okay, and. I'll even expand it. She's. cross-examined, she chooses to take the. stand, she, you know, cross-examined. Or. let's say she says, "I'm not going to. testify in my own case." But Kevin. Hart's team decides to call her as a. witness, which I'm sure they they have. the ability to do. Who makes the. objections to their questioning? If. she's representing herself and she gets. a question under cross-examination, does.

she say, "Uh, your honor, objection. I. don't want to answer that." She does. And this is yet another reason why why. representing yourself is a terrible idea. because when you're a witness on the. stand, you should only be thinking about. the question and what your answer is. going to be. And she now has to think. about, do I need to object to the. question? She's added another job, a job. she's not qualified to do that she has. to do while testifying. It's it's hard. Occasionally a a prosay will bring in.

somebody who will kind of serve as a. lawyer for a limited purpose. I don't. know if she has anybody else. >> Yeah, >> I'm surprised I'm surprised she wouldn't. have been able to find somebody else to. represent her in this case, but I don't. I don't know what went on. >> One of the other people on the witness. list is of course Kevin Hart. So, let me. read to you what it says. Defendant. anticipates questioning plainif Kevin. Hart regarding matters within his. personal knowledge concerning defendant. Misha Shakes's employment with and. departure from Heartbeat. Communications. between Hart and Shakes concerning final.

wages, healthc care coverage, the. circumstances surrounding the July 2020. resignation date and the October 22nd, 2020 agreement, representations and. communications concerning healthc care. coverage, and the party's respective. performance under the agreement. Defendant contends that healthc care. coverage for 36 months was material to. her decision to enter the agreement and. that the promised coverage was not. provided for that period. Goes on to say. defendant further anticipates. questioning Hart regarding matters. within his personal knowledge concerning. the September 2017 recording controversy. which we've talked about involving.

Montasag including events personally. experienced by Hart his relationship and. communications with JT Jackson and. Hart's own statements and communications. concerning the incident and subsequent. events. Defendant further anticipates. questioning Hart regarding matters. within his personal knowledge concerning. the September 1st, 2019 automobile. accident involving Hart and Jared. Stanton Black, including the. circumstances surrounding the accident, Hart's own statements, and commun. communications concerning the accident. and its aftermath. Defendant also. anticipates questioning Hart regarding.

law enforcement contacts and. investigations relevant to the evidence. in this action, including contacts. involving the law enforcement officers. identified on defendants's witness list. what information, assistance or. cooperation, if any, was requested from. Hart. Hart's response to those requests, whether requested information or. assistance was provided, and Hart's. reasons for his response to the extent. those matters are within Hart's personal. knowledge and are determined, relevant, and admissible by the court. There's a. lot of legal ease here. There's a lot. more there, but just basically, I mean,

let's talk about this for a minute. Aside from the fact that you might have. a situation where Shakes, his former. personal executive assistant, would be. questioning him on the stand, which I. think would be interesting. What are. your thoughts on that? Him taking the. stand like this in this format. He's going to have to. We have questions. about some of these other witnesses on. her list, but he is essentially the. pliff. He has sued her in this court. So, if she wants to call him as a. witness, he's going to have to come. testify. That's just a given. And part.

of the reason for having him on the list. is is that it puts a little bit of. pressure on him maybe to settle or to. give up on this right at the end. Not to. go through with it, not to have to. testify, not to have to be questioned. publicly about stuff that you don't want. to be questioned about. That's an. interesting aspect of this litigation, right? He's mad that she made certain. things public. And by bringing the. litigation, he has echoed her podcast.

appearance, which would have been, you. know, over and done with years ago and. no one would have thought about it again. except here we are on this podcast. talking about it because he filed a. lawsuit. He says he was going to trial. He says he was harmed by those. >> and and and he may believe that and he. may want to go through and he probably. has considered all of that. Someone's. probably said to him, you know, Kevin, this is just going to amplify those.

statements and they're going to be heard. by more people than would have heard of. them and he's going to say, I don't. care. She violated the agreement. She. intentionally harmed me. I'm going to. sue her. It's funny because not funny, but since this news came out this last. week about SAG potentially being called. to testify, you know how many comments I. saw? Kevin Hart has an alleged sex tape. like nobody knew that allegation. >> That's right. Cuz he had settled that. case that. >> was dismissed. It was thrown out. >> or whatever. He had he he had emerged.

victorious in that case. He had ended it. and now here it is again and and she's. referring to it. >> in part to put pressure on him. >> Yeah. Let me ask you this. in a. litigation, can he, if since it's his. case, right, calls his witnesses, can. he, you know, when it's his time to. testify, he chooses to testify, gives. his narrative, he's questioned, and then. right before the cross-examination, he tries to settle with her. >> Yeah, he could. So, it's now it's his. narrative out there and that's it.

>> He could absolutely try to do it. And I. don't know what it would take to do it. It's not impossible that he would end up. having to pay her some money. >> Yeah. Well, I mean, again, risk, you. know, risk loss. I mean, basically risk. benefit. What would he have to gain by. continuing this being questioned, having. all these other witnesses potentially. testify on her list? So, I mean, we're. going to follow it and see where it. goes. But Rich, I really appreciate you. taking the time. Thanks so much. >> Always glad to be here. >> It's all we have for you right now here. on Sidebar. Everybody, thank you so much. for joining us. I'm Jesse Weber. Speak.

to you next time.