'Hurt Locker' Producers Shoot Back at Iraq War Veteran's Lawsuit

Producers of Oscar-winning film The Hurt Locker have lobbed a First Amendment grenade at Iraq war veteran Jeffrey Sarver, who filed a lawsuit on the eve of last year's Academy Awards claiming that the story of an Army bomb squad was a thinly veiled account of his own life story.

The case was originally filed in New Jersey, but the defendants successfully got it transfered to California. As a result, those sued—including Summit Entertainment, Voltage Pictures, director Kathryn Bigelow and screenwriter Mark Boal—are now able to exploit  California's "anti-SLAPP" statute, a law that essentially allows them to countersue over attempts to stifle free speech. 

Today, the defendants took that opportunity in a 25-page motion to strike Sarver's lawsuit. The producers allege that Sarver has interfered with their enjoyment of free speech and are asking a judge to order Sarver to pay more than $19,000 in attorney fees to them.

Sarver alleged he was the basis for the film's main character, "Will James" or "Blaster One." He claimed Hurt Locker put him in false light and defamed him with dishonest treatment about his character. He said he was the one who coined the phrase "The Hurt Locker" and that the filmmakers had cheated him out of participating in the financial success of the film. To get around the First Amendment, Sarver asserted that Boal signed an agreement from the U.S. Military in order to be embedded with Sarver's unit while doing research for a Playboy article that inspired the film.

But today, the defendants say Sarver's claims don't past muster.

"It is apparent from a review of the Film that it is not about Plaintiff," says the motion to strike. "It is a fictional work. The fact that the writer who wrote the screenplay for the Film may have drawn inspiration and realistic details about the events he witnessed and people he met while embedded as a reporter with Plaintiff's unit in Iraq does not convert the Film from fiction to fact, or turn its fictional lead character into Plaintiff."

The defendants say Sarver's publicity rights claim must fail because his name or likeness was never used; that his privacy and defamation claims must fall because the film wasn't about Sarver; that the breach of the military's embed contract must fail because the terms of the contract aren't spelled out and there's no basis why the defendants should be held liable.

Here's the full motion that was filed today.