A Hollywood Icon in Legal Crosshairs

What began as a cinematic passion project is now one of Hollywood’s most closely watched courtroom dramas. Star Kevin Costner seeks dismissal of remaining claims in a sexual-assault lawsuit. This case could redefine on-set consent, liability, and intimacy coordination. Stunt performer Devyn LaBella alleges a violent, unscripted scene occurred during filming in Utah in 2023. Costner’s legal team calls her version "fabricated and financially motivated." The dispute tests how far creative direction extends before becoming unlawful conduct.

Inside the Lawsuit: Sexual Harassment and Battery Claims

LaBella’s civil complaint alleges multiple violations against Costner, Territory Pictures, and others. These include sexual harassment, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. She claims she was directed to lie in a wagon as a male co-star simulated a sexual act. This allegedly occurred without prior rehearsal or an intimacy coordinator. Such omissions violate SAG-AFTRA rules for sensitive scenes.

Costner’s attorneys, led by veteran litigator Marty Singer, countered with a special motion to strike. They filed this under California’s anti-SLAPP statute (Code of Civil Procedure S 425.16). They argue the claims interfere with protected artistic expression. In August, Judge Anne-Christine Massullo granted the motion in part. She dismissed two counts, including one under California’s Bane Act. Eight claims were allowed to proceed.

Unwilling to accept a partial victory, Costner’s team has appealed, seeking full dismissal. “The evidence is clear these claims have no legal or factual merit,” Singer stated. He vowed to “fight for the truth.”

Competing Narratives: Compliance vs. Consent

LaBella’s attorneys, Kate McFarlane and James Vagnini, maintain that the incident was not artistic interpretation. They argue it was "a reckless violation of workplace safety and consent."

“The creative process cannot be used as a shield for unlawful conduct,” McFarlane told Lawyer Monthly. “Compliance under pressure is not consent.”

Costner, who directed, produced, and financed Horizon, insists the moment was a benign, scripted shot. He noted it was fully clothed, blocked in advance, and consensual. His defense submitted text messages showing LaBella thanking supervisors after filming. This evidence, the defense argues, contradicts her later claims of distress.

The plaintiff countered with her own evidence. This included messages with the production’s intimacy coordinator expressing shock and confusion. Her amended complaint describes emotional trauma and a “systemic failure to maintain basic safeguards for performers.”

Analysis: The Legal Statutes at Stake in Costner v. LaBella

This case hinges on four key legal principles:

1. Consent and Intimacy Coordination: SAG-AFTRA Section 16 requires 48 hours’ notice for simulated sex scenes. Written consent is mandatory. Violations can breach both union contracts and general tort law duties. 2. Hostile Work Environment: California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) protects employees from sexual harassment. LaBella must show the conduct was unwelcome, severe, and unaddressed by her employer. 3. Anti-SLAPP and Expressive Work Defense: Costner’s anti-SLAPP motion centers on First Amendment protected speech. Courts must balance expressive freedom against conduct that causes independent harm. Creative acts have not excused breaches of safety or consent protocols in prior cases. 4. Procedural Next Steps: If the dismissal fails, discovery will begin in 2026. This stage will scrutinize production logs, call sheets, and on-set communications. It will reveal whether the scene was truly unscripted or documented in the production plan.

**A Broader Legal Reckoning in Post-#