New Twist in Kevin Hart Sex Tape Lawsuit

We got a new twist in the Kevin Hart sex. tape legal drama. The comedian and actor. fighting back against an effort to have. a woman who accused him of secretly. recording her having sex from. testifying. We're going to explain what. he's arguing and how this fits into the. overall lawsuit. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law and Crime. I'm Jesse. Weber. As we expected when we first covered the. Kevin Hart legal case last week, we had. a feeling that he would respond to this.

effort to have a woman who previously. alleged that he secretly recorded her. having sex, this whole sex tape. allegation to prevent her from. testifying in an upcoming trial. We had. a feeling that he would try to block. this. And we were right. And we're going. to get into what he's arguing. Now, I. have to put it into context to make. sense of this. I'm not going to go. through every bit of the legal case. We. did that in our previous episode of. Sidebar. If you want, you can check that. out. It's up on Long Crimes YouTube. page. But I'm going to give you a. summary of what this is about. And then.

I'm going to get more into the actual. new filing. So, a woman named Montia Sag. sued Hart back in 2019 for millions of. dollars over allegations that he. secretly filmed her having sex without. her permission. What we're talking about. is this alleged secret sex tape. Now, Hart not only denied the claims, denied. the allegations, but this case was. ultimately thrown out. Actually, I. should say cases. It was reported there. was a federal case that was thrown out. because of a jurisdictional issue and.

there was a separate state case that was. dismissed over a missed court. conference. In other words, it was never. resolved substantively. Her claims of. being filmed without her consent, that. didn't go to a judge. That didn't go to. a jury. Now the question becomes, is. that going to be explored in this new. case? In this new lawsuit? What do I. mean? So Hart filed a lawsuit against. his former personal assistant, a woman. named Misha Shakes. He is alleging that.

she violated the terms of a. confidentiality agreement that she. reportedly signed because of what she. allegedly said in a reported interview. with Latasha Transina Kei. This was an. interview a few years after she. seemingly resigned. More specifically, this is what Kevin Hart's complaint. reads. Quote, "Shakes made various. statements regarding Hart, his family, and Heartbeat personnel, his company, andor employees of other heart. affiliated entities. Notwithstanding the. truth or falsity of any such statements,

Shakes would only have had knowledge. regarding such subjects as a result of. her employment with Hart and Heartbeat. Such information necessarily would have. constituted confidential information as. defined by the NDA, the non-disclosure. agreement, 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. And there's also. claims of a shakeddown, a ransom to be. paid to prevent the interview from. coming out. But in the end, it seems. that this interview was reportedly. published. And he claims that this. interview harmed him. He filed a. lawsuit, including against Shakes. This.

was a lawsuit out in Los Angeles. The. original causes of action included civil. extortion, breach of contract, intentional interference with. contractual relations, invasion of. privacy, and defamation. Although, I. should tell you from Hart's recent. filing, which we're going to talk about, it seems that all that may remain in. this case are breach of a non-disclosure. agreement, defamation, and invasion of. privacy. And he's suing for all sorts of. damages, compensatory damages, punitive. damages. Now, it also appears there was. some back and forth regarding the status.

of this lawsuit. So, either like I said, maybe claims were dismissed or the suit. was dismissed for procedural reasons, but according to My News LA and our. review of the court record, Hart's suit. was reinstated and it seems that it. appears to be active. Actually, as. reported by TMZ, it was only a few. months ago when Kevin Hart asked the. court to order Shakes to pay him $50,000. in contracted upon damages for allegedly. breaching the NDA. And in a declaration,

Kevin Hart told the judge, quote, "Working in the entertainment industry, my livelihood depends in part on my. reputation and the public's perception. of me, particularly in light of the fact. that I am involved in a number of. familyoriented projects." Now, I want. you to keep that in mind as we get into. this new filing, too. But it seems that. Miss Shakes is also representing herself. in this lawsuit. And in one of her. filings, this is the big issue, she. listed who her potential witnesses are. And one of those witnesses is Montia.

Sebec, the woman I mentioned before. And. 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. Okay, I got to. say this real quick. So, if you're. watching this and you own a business,

you manage a business, you run a. business, you don't need me to tell you. that running a business is tough enough. The question is, why make it harder. doing things manually or relying on. dozens of apps that don't really talk to. each other, right? That is where our. sponsor, ODO, comes in because ODO is an. all-in-one business management platform. with a full suite of integrated apps. that seamlessly connect all your. operations from sales and accounting to. manufacturing, even shipping. ODO can. automatically generate these. professional, sleek looking sales orders. and invoices and vendor bills. It can.

automatically assign sales teams. It can. send email updates through each sales. stage and even use AI to pull reports. that help with your decision-making. For. manufacturing, their apps can sync. inventory with real-time production and. purchase updates so you never run out of. stock. When it comes time for. accounting, that's also fully automated. ODU can create invoices, track expenses, and even summarize data with AI to save. you hundreds of hours. You know what the. best part is? You can choose your apps. and even build custom workflows. So, it's all fully tailored to your. business's needs. Take your business to.

the next level by consulting with an ODO. expert today for free at odo.com/. sidebar. Okay, so that's the brief. backstory. Now, I'm getting into the. update, this new legal twist. Kevin Hart. filed a new motion trying to stop Montia. Sbag from testifying. And he's also. trying to do a few other things here. So, first let me tell you what Kevin. Hart presents in this filing and then in. a little bit I'm going to bring back on. trial attorney Rick Shoenstein to give.

his take on if any of this is going to. work. I had him on previously. I'm going. to have him on on this update. Okay. So, this new motion, this new filing, it's a. motion in lemonade. It's a pre-trial. evidentiary motion. It's how you try to. limit evidence from coming in. Quote, "Plaintiffs Kevin Hart and Khart. Enterprises submitted this motion in. lemonade, number one, seeking an order. from this court precluding defendant. Misha Shakes from further disseminating. or submitting into evidence the various. improper pre-trial documents, most.

specifically her witness list that she. filed with the court before meeting and. conferring with plaintiffs counsel as. required regarding the substance of such. documents." That was number one. This is. number two, precluding testimony from. irrelevant witnesses, and three, prohibiting or limiting requested media. authorization previously undisclosed to. plaintiffs to record or broadcast these. proceedings. So Kevin Hart is asking the. court for three things here. quote, "The. matters to be tried thus involve. plaintiff's privacy and confidentiality.

interests, and the public nature of the. trial already risks embarrassing. plaintiffs with unwanted disclosures and. dissemination of purported information. and statements, a number of which. plaintiffs allege are false, which have. the potential to subject plaintiffs to. unwanted and unwarranted public. attention without providing any. probitative value or otherwise. furthering the interest of justice.". Now, one of the main arguments from. Kevin Hart is that Misha Shakes never. consulted with his legal team before she. submitted this witness list. Quote,

"This court entered its order dated. September 29th, 2026, which called for. the parties to quote, exchange trial. documents by no later than October 2nd, 2026, and to meet and confer on October. 6, 2026 regarding those pre-trial. submissions and trial related matters. While the parties timely exchanged the. requisite pre-trial documents, unbeknownst to plaintiffs, defendant. also filed those materials in the public. record with the court. In violation of. the court's order, requiring that the.

parties first meet and confer regarding. such issues, plaintiffs did not. immediately become aware that defendant. had filed her pre-trial documents. without first meeting and conferring. because defendant filed the documents. manually and not electronically. It goes. on to say, "Among those prematurely. filed documents is defendant's witness. list, which not only identifies numerous. witnesses who have nothing to do with. this dispute, but also details various, often fanciful theories regarding. subjects on which defendant supposedly. hopes to elicit testimony. Such material.

and commentary are improper for a. witness list and appear designed only to. create scandal and or embarrass. plaintiffs. Indeed, defendants's witness. list was specifically referenced in. multiple stories appearing on various. gossip and news websites this week. So, that's interesting. Aside from the. potential legal requirement of notice to. the other side, which we'll get into, he. claims that she submitted this witness. list to embarrass him. And we talked. about this kind of last time, too. Is it.

a way to get more attention on a. potential piece of evidence that could. arguably put the other side in a bad. light? Is it a way to pressure the other. side to settle? This is only a sampling. of what could come out at a trial. Do. you really want this to go in front of a. jury? Do you want this to become public? And look, I'll tell you, when this broke. last week, there were a lot of people. that I at least saw online who saw the. headlines and were like, "Wait, Kevin. Hart allegedly has a sex tape? Not a lot.

of people were familiar with those. allegations." And this is the point that. Kevin Hart's trying to make. He also. argues that Sebag, this is the more. substantive argument, she shouldn't even. be called as a witness. She's not. relevant to the current case he has. against Shakes. His motion reads, quote, during the party's October 6, 2026 meet. and confer, plaintiffs council advised. defendant that plaintiffs object to. certain material included among her. pre-trial submissions, most. significantly her witness list, and.

wanted to address such concerns as part. of the meet and confer discussion. However, after discussing matters. unrelated to pre-trial issues and before. the parties were able to discuss. plaintiff's concerns regarding the. witness list or any other pre-trial. issues, defendant abruptly terminated. the phone call, saying only that she. wanted to go to trial and proceeded to. hang up. Defendant did not respond to. plaintiff's council's follow-up email. communications later that day. Now, of. course, that's Kevin Hart's allegations, his narrative of what happened. Shakes. may present a different version, but.

this is the legal argument. Okay, here. is why Kevin Hart argues that Misha. Shakes should not be able to use the. witness list or call Montia Sag as a. witness. He cites case law about what. relevant evidence only being admissible. during a trial that the test is you have. to relate it to some matter at issue in. the case and it has to have some. probitative value, right? Meaning it. helps to prove a claim. And he also. cites and this is something that we've.

mentioned on other times on sidebar. evidence can be excluded if its. probitative value is outweighed by undue. prejudice to a party to a defendant or. will confuse the issues or mislead the. jury. As Kevin Hart cites, quote, "The. witness list filed without any required. meet and confer efforts has no. probitative value but merely offers. improper commentary regarding numerous. irrelevant matters that are not before. this court. Indeed, it largely. constitutes defendants's broad and.

selfserving narrative and makes every. effort to discuss details of shakes and. hearts respective personal lives that. have the potential to cause. embarrassment and potentially garner fur. and inflammatory emotions in the jury in. addition to further compromising. plaintiff's privacy rights. So again, Kevin Hart is asking the court to stop. Shakes from further using or. disseminating a witness list. Argument. number two in this motion, irrelevant. witnesses should not be called to.

testify at trial. Quote, "The dispute. involves only defendants's breach of the. NDA, her invasion of Hart's privacy, and. her defamation of Hart, all resulting. from an online interview defendant gave. to online broadcaster Latasha Kibi. Each. and every other one of the witnesses. identified on defendants's witness list. other than Hart, defendant Shakes, herself, and KBI are thus irrelevant and. their testimony should be precluded at. trial. These are the only witnesses. likely to have relevant information. regarding defendants's breach of the NDA.

and related torsious conduct. All the. other witnesses identified on the. witness list are only identified for the. purpose of introducing unnecessary and. private details regarding plaintiff's. life and business in hopes of. potentially embarrassing Hart with. unwarranted publicity. Straightforward. argument. We'll discuss if it's going to. work. And then finally, this is Kevin. Hart's last argument in this motion, fighting back against the media's. request to record or broadcast the. proceedings. And it goes to the argument. that his side didn't receive a notice.

from the media about this request. There's also a reference to California. law that apparently generally prohibits. photographing, recording, or. broadcasting court proceedings. But also. Kevin Hart cites a more substantive. argument. Quote, "The nature of this. case is of such that plaintiff's privacy. rights are likely to be adversely. impacted if the request is granted." As. discussed above, the nature of this. dispute results in an increased. likelihood that private or confidential. matters will be publicly disclosed at.

any trial, making public access to the. trial generally presumed an unusually. fraught matter. Such access should be. limited in that no recording or. broadcasting should be allowed, particularly given that the media. request for such broadcasting was never. served and or received by Pliff's. council. And I'm just going to give you. one more update before we break all this. down. The trial date has been moved. Yeah. So this trial no longer happening. in 2026. The trial date has now. officially moved to February 1st, 2027.

Let's break all this down. And this is. where I welcome back on trial attorney. litigator Rich Showenstein who tackled. this with me the first time last week. and now we have this update. Rich, thanks for taking the time to talk about. it. I want to take this piece by piece. um and see if there's substance um if. there's support for Kevin Hart's. arguments. First, let's start with this. idea. This idea that you have to. communicate with his side, his legal. team before filing the witness list. Is. there meat to that?

So I I suspect that there was a. requirement to meet and confer, a. general requirement, and often this is. the case before a trial. The parties are. told to meet and confer about their. witness and exhibit lists and to involve. the court if there's any dispute. But. eventually, if the defendant said, "I. want to call these eight witnesses." And. the plaintiff said, "We don't agree.". she would have filed the list with the.

court and explained why she wanted to. call the witnesses. So, I I think it. would have had the same outcome. They're. just maybe saying they would have been. better prepared to deal with it. >> They say she violated a court order. >> Yeah, I I haven't seen that court order. That's possible. It would be. inconsequential except let let's what. they're really saying. >> is you are defending this case by trying. to make it embarrassing for Kevin Hart.

Yes. >> Right. So, so you filed this public. filing loaded up with witnesses who. probably aren't relevant to the case. because you knew it would get picked up. by the media and you want to embarrass. Kevin Hart and bully him out of pursuing. this case. That's what they're saying. There does appear to be some merit in. that argument. >> Well, you say there's merit in that. argument. Why is there merit in that. argument? Why would Montia Sbag be, and. this is goes to more general discussion,

why would she be an irrelevant witness. in this case? Why does she not apply? Because if I remember correctly, and I. think I we talked about this before, he. is suing for defamation. So, does it. matter the substance of the. conversations in that interview? How. does a court determine whether or not. she's an irrelevant witness? Well, the court so so first question is. does the witness have knowledge of facts. that are consequential to the issues in.

dispute? Now what Kevin Hart and his. lawyer say is this is a simple dispute. about whether this former assistant. breached her non-disclosure agreement. and shared confidential information and. said things publicly she wasn't entitled. to say. And the only relevant witnesses. according to Kevin Hart are Kevin Hart, the defendant, and the podcaster. Their argument is that those are the. only witnesses that matter. And you are.

correct that the defendant will say, "Well, if you're asserting defamation, truth is the ultimate defense to. defamation." So, and and it does appear. that some of what Kevin Hart's team is. saying is that the information that was. shared on the podcast was not accurate. So, if the accuracy of those facts is an. issue, then these other witnesses become. potentially relevant because they have. knowledge of facts that show whether or.

not the statements are accurate. And I. struggle I if if she didn't come up or. the allegation of this sex tape didn't. come up during the course of the. interview, then I'm struggling to. understand what her relevance is to this. case. Because even if you assume the. argument, well, if this is a contract. dispute and you know, she claims she. wasn't paid proper compensation or. health insurance, something that Kevin. Hart denies, and she would say, well, Montia Sebagg maybe went through the. same kind of thing. That's not what I'm.

seeing in that list, that witness list, what her expected testimony is about. So, I think that's he has a real. argument that if there was nothing about. Sbag in the interview, I I don't think. the court's going to allow her to. testify, right? >> I would agree with that. I mean, there's. a general argument, I think, by the. defense that to the extent Kevin Hart is. claiming that it's hurt his name and. reputation, his name and reputation has. already been severely damaged in recent. years by things like this supposed tape.

So, we're going to talk about what is. Kevin Hart's name and reputation. separate and apart from this interview. because our contention on the defense is. that the interview couldn't have hurt. his name and reputation. His name and. reputation is trash. But that doesn't. mean that the underlying facts of those. other events would then become relevant. The relevant thing would be what is his. name and reputation? That might be. relevant. not what other event happened.

or what other controversy was he in that. might have impacted that. >> What do you think about the fact that. Kevin Hart's team said she submitted. this list manually, not electronically? And I' we've talked about it before. She's representing herself, which means. now she's going to be the one who has to. defend this witness list, defend calling. SAG. Does that raise any red flags to. you? >> So it it would be curious because. frankly very little is submitted. manually in the courts anymore. So when.

something is you kind of go hm why is. that? Now this is a prosay litigant. litigating on her own behalf. I don't. know if she had access to the court's. website. I would think probably she does. at this point participating in this. case. But the idea what what Hart's. saying I think is listen she took this. witness list. She didn't talk to us. about it. It's loaded with names that. have nothing to do with the case. She. then filed it manually so that we didn't.

see it right away. And then she gave it. to the press and she said, "Here's the. document I just filed." And then the. press posted it all [snorts] over the. internet. And we didn't have time even. to respond to it because she hadn't met. and conferred with us as she was. required to. She didn't file it. electronically, so we didn't see it. right away. So, we didn't hear about it. until we turned on TMZ or whatever. outlet first covered it. And that is bad.

pool is what they're saying. That that. is that is intentionally trying to do us. harm in in the public sector. >> Is it the court's job now to determine. whether or not she acted in bad faith in. filing this? And if they ultimately. determine that, what does that mean for. Miss Shakes? So a court could look at. that if a court was interested. The first thing the court will look at. is were its rules and orders complied.

with. So the question of whether they. had been ordered to meet and confer and. she ignored that that would concern the. court. If she violated some rule, if. there was some rule of filing, the first. thing a court's going to say is were our. rules and orders followed? If they. weren't, the court might make the. additional inquiry of were they not. filed in bad faith or just because we. have a prosay litigant who doesn't know. what she's doing. Which of those is it? That could be a relevant inquiry by the.

court. But I feel mostly what the. court's going to say is you have to obey. our orders. The judge, you have to obey. my orders, my rules. You have to do it. this way. I'm giving you a warning. Next. time it won't be a warning. >> Before we talk about the last part, the. media request, just following up on. something that you and I talked about. last time and I mentioned it earlier on. in this episode, there was the theory, the allegation perhaps that do you think. an alleged motive in this could be, you.

put that out there, makes news, puts a. lot of spotlight on Kevin Hart. Is this. a way to, you know, pressure settlement. talks? Do you really want to take this. to trial? I mean, this is already. something embarrassing. Do you want this. to go forward? Do you think that that is. potentially an interest, a strategy, a. motivation for Miss Shakes? We have no. idea. We have no idea. This is purely an. allegation. I'm just speculating here, but do you think a way is look, this is. a this is an example of some of the.

stuff that could come out at a trial. Do. you really want to take this to trial or. why don't we settle here? What do you. think? >> Yeah, absolutely. It it appears from the. way this case is being litigated and the. disputes currently going on that Kevin. Hart and his team wanted to enforce a. contract and hold this defendant. accountable for her alleged breaches and. other wrongdoing, but to do it. relatively quietly. I mean, they filed. in court, so that's public, but they. didn't want to have a public trial. And.

part of the defense strategy is to make. a lot of noise, to put pressure on Kevin. Hart, to make him look like the bad guy, to point to these other incidents and. potentially draw more public attention. to it so that he has to back off. That. does appear to me to be a potential. strategy here. >> Final point, you saw this end part about. uh Kevin Hart trying to stop the media. from broadcasting or recording uh the. proceedings. Now, I listed what the law. is in California as he cites it. It's.

both a procedural argument in terms of. not them not getting notice, but also a. substantive argument based on what the. subject matter is of this case and why. he's so concerned. Your thoughts on. whether or not that's going to be. successful. >> So, the default rule in California is. they don't have cameras in the court, but the judge can allow it in matters of. public interest. And this is an. interesting case for that because Kevin. Hart is obviously a public figure. There. is public interest in it. We're talking.

about it for the second time in a week. Lots of other people are talking about. it. It's also an interesting case and. involves a non-disclosure agreement and. some other things we see. So there is. public interest in it. But the case was. brought to protect Kevin Hart's privacy. and confidentiality. and broadcasting it is, you know, contrary to that goal. So, it puts the. judge in an interesting position. If I. had to bet, if you if you make me take a.

side sitting here today, which I know. you're going to do because I know you. >> you know you know me well. You know me. well. >> Uh I don't think the court's going to. let cameras in this courtroom. I think. that it is too much a one-sided. strategic thing that the defense is. asking for. Not because they have some. real goal in transparency, but part of. this other thing to pressure him to back. off of the case because he won't want it. to be televised. I think probably the. judge won't grant that, that probably.

this trial won't be public. But I will. say that all everything that's happening. right now, the fact that there are. things being filed in court that Kevin. Hart doesn't like, the fact that people. are talking about it, which he doesn't. like, the fact that they're dredging up. old allegations, which I don't think he. likes, and the possibility that this. will be litigated in a public form. He's. the plainif. He brought this case, >> right? He walked into every one of those.

things voluntarily and he can make the. decision about that. He can end the case. tomorrow. I think he can say, "All. right, no more." And walk away from it. and it'll be we'll forget about it in in. half a week. >> That's such an interesting and I was. going to end on that point, right? Cuz. the court could say, "Hey, you're the. one who brought this lawsuit. You're the. one who's now putting it in the court. record. What right do you have to keep. it from being public?" It's kind of like. when we saw this in the Diddy case when. Jane Doe's were filing lawsuits against. Diddy and they wanted to remain.

anonymous. A court said, "Look, you. proactively took this step to litigate. Defendant has a right to know who you. are and so does the public and so you. put it out there. But at the same time, if he is trying to protect his rights. and he really is a victim in this case. and this is about an NDA, this is about. private matters, does he have not a. right given the specific subject matter. to keep this private in a certain way?". Hey, and I think that's an interesting. back and forth and we'll see what the. court ultimately does. Rich Showenstein, thank you for taking the time, sir. Appreciate it.

>> My pleasure. That'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.