Rebel Wilson has committed a “fraud on the court” with allegedly dishonest pretrial testimony and now should be sanctioned, according to new court papers filed by producers of “The Deb,” who are suing the actress for defamation.
The plaintiffs in the Los Angeles Superior Court complaint are Amanda Ghost, Gregor Cameron and Vince Holden. The three accuse Wilson of defaming them on Instagram in 2024, accusing them of, among other things, embezzling funds from the film’s budget. “The Deb” was Wilson’s directorial debut.
“Plaintiffs do not bring this motion lightly,” the producers’ attorneys state in their court papers. “In fact, plaintiffs and (their) counsel have been very reluctant to file it in view of the seriousness of the allegations stated herein.”
The 46-year-old Wilson’s attorney did not immediately reply to a request for comment on the sanctions motion, which is scheduled for hearing on Oct. 22 before Judge Thomas D. Long.
According to the producers’ attorneys’ court papers, it has “become apparent that Rebel Wilson has no regard for candor to the court, no scruples about committing perjury with respect to material facts and no hesitation about the deliberate destruction and manipulation of critical evidence.”
Recently obtained discovery “removes any remaining doubt that Wilson has testified falsely many times throughout the course of this case about matters that go to the heart of this case,” the producers’ lawyers further state in their pleadings. “Her conduct constitutes a fraud on the court and has resulted in substantial prejudice to the plaintiffs.”
The producers’ attorneys are seeking “sharp remedial sanctions” up to and including financial and evidentiary exclusion punishment or even terminating sanctions, which could mean dismissal of the case or a default judgment against Wilson
The producers’ attorneys say one example of Wilson’s alleged untruthful statements came when she said in a sworn declaration that she had never shared a demand letter related to the case with anyone. However, former Wilson publicist Marcy Engelman said she Wilson shared the letter with her along with other documents in July 2024, according to the producers’ attorneys’ court papers.
“Wilson’s sworn testimony denying publication of the (demand) letter was an outright lie,” the producers’ lawyers state in their court papers. “Tellingly, Wilson never produced these documents (to the plaintiffs). As with every important document in this case, plaintiffs had to obtain them from someone other than Wilson.”
The producers’ lawyers’ court papers also contend that evidence unearthed during discovery confirms Wilson’s involvement in defamatory websites despite the Australian celebrity’s ongoing denial of having anything to do with them. The plaintiffs’ attorneys also allege that discovery showed that Melissa Nathan, Wilson’s public relations agent, directed the creation of the websites on Wilson’s behalf.
“Documents later produced by Nathan — not by Wilson — further confirm that both were involved in the websites and that their sworn denials were false,” according to the plaintiffs’ lawyers’ pleadings.
The producers’ attorneys also state in their court papers that Wilson has been involved in “pervasive game playing” and cite as an example her alleged deletion in August of the Instagram video upon which the plaintiffs’ amended complaint is premised.
However, Wilson served discovery requests to the plaintiffs suggesting that the video had been removed long ago and also served a discovery response stating “unequivocally” that the video had been “long since deleted,” according to the producers’ lawyers’ pleadings.
In a sworn declaration, plaintiffs’ attorney Camille M. Vasquez says her law firm has incurred nearly $475,000 for legal services “performed in connection with conducting discovery related to the conduct described in the motion, including and especially the denial by Wilson and Nathan of involvement in publishing the websites.”
conduct described in the Motion, including and especially the denial by Wilson and Nathan of
Wilson has filed a countersuit in the original underlying case that accuses the producers of a “troubling pattern” of “theft, bullying and sexual misconduct” while also contending they inflated the film’s budget and split the extra money between themselves.
In November 2024, the judge denied Wilson’s dismissal motion in the producers’ underlying case and his ruling was upheld under appeal in August. Wilson is seeking to continue the scheduled Oct. 5 trial for at least four months.