Kevin Hart’s Company Loses Court Bid To Keep Dispute Private
A Los Angeles Superior Court judge has rejected an attempt by Kevin Hart’s media company, Hartbeat, to move its ongoing legal dispute with two former employees into private arbitration, ensuring the case will continue to play out in open court rather than behind closed doors.
According to court documents obtained by TMZ, Hartbeat filed suit against former employees Eric Eddings, who joined the company in 2022, and Lesley Gwam, who was hired in April 2023. The lawsuit, filed in February, alleges that the pair had access to extensive confidential and proprietary information tied to Hartbeat’s audio and podcast division, including financial performance data, partnership strategies, and long-term business plans. Hartbeat claims Eddings and Gwam used that information to develop a competing podcast business while still employed at the company, and further alleges the two created and circulated an investor pitch deck seeking to raise $2 million for their new venture.
The company says Eddings and Gwam were terminated on January 30, 2026, the day after Hartbeat learned of the pitch deck. Hartbeat subsequently issued a cease-and-desist letter before filing its lawsuit, which includes claims of breach of contract, unfair business practices, misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment. The company has argued that the alleged conduct contributed to a decline in revenue within its podcast and audio division, which it says ultimately forced it to downsize that unit.
Eddings and Gwam have disputed Hartbeat’s characterisation of events, arguing in their own filings that there is no evidence they misappropriated any confidential material. They acknowledged working on their new company while still employed at Hartbeat but maintained they did not seek investors or develop show concepts during that period, insisting their pitch deck relied on general industry knowledge and their own prior professional experience rather than company secrets.
In seeking to move the case out of public view, Hartbeat pointed to arbitration provisions contained in agreements both former employees had signed. While the court acknowledged the existence of those provisions, it ultimately found that Eddings and Gwam had made a persuasive showing that the arbitration clauses were unconscionable and therefore could not be enforced against them, denying Hartbeat’s motion to compel arbitration.
The ruling follows an earlier setback for Hartbeat in the same dispute, after a court granted the company a temporary restraining order but later declined to issue a preliminary injunction, finding that Hartbeat had not adequately demonstrated that Eddings and Gwam had used proprietary information or trade secrets. The court at that stage also described the restrictions Hartbeat sought to impose on its former employees as vague, ambiguous, and overly broad.
With the arbitration bid now rejected, the case will proceed in Los Angeles Superior Court, where both sides are expected to continue litigating their competing claims in full public view.
About the Author
