Listen to the article
The armorer responsible for weapons on the set of “Rust” has filed a lawsuit against Alec Baldwin and other production figures, claiming their public statements have damaged his reputation and business prospects in the aftermath of the fatal on-set shooting.
Seth Kenney, owner of PDQ Arm & Prop, alleges in court documents that Baldwin and several production team members made statements that portrayed him in a “false light” to the public. The lawsuit, filed last week in Santa Fe County District Court, marks the latest legal development in the ongoing saga surrounding the October 2021 incident that killed cinematographer Halyna Hutchins and wounded director Joel Souza.
The filing specifically targets Baldwin, “Rust” armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, and assistant director David Halls. Kenney claims these individuals made statements suggesting he supplied substandard ammunition that contributed to the tragedy, assertions he vehemently denies.
“The defendants’ public accusations have severely impacted my business and livelihood,” Kenney stated in court documents. His company, which previously maintained a steady client base providing prop weapons and ammunition to film productions across the Southwest, has reportedly seen a substantial decline in contracts since the incident.
According to industry insiders, prop suppliers operate in a specialized market where reputation is paramount for securing work. The negative publicity surrounding the “Rust” shooting has created ripple effects throughout the film industry’s approach to on-set safety, with particular scrutiny directed at weapons handlers and suppliers.
Kenney’s lawsuit asserts that Baldwin, who was both starring in and producing “Rust,” made public statements that unfairly shifted blame toward suppliers rather than addressing on-set safety protocols. The filing references several media interviews where Baldwin allegedly implied that ammunition suppliers bore responsibility for the presence of live rounds on set.
The legal action comes amid a complex web of litigation following the shooting. Gutierrez-Reed is currently awaiting trial on charges of involuntary manslaughter, while Baldwin had similar charges against him dismissed earlier this year, though prosecutors have indicated they may seek a new indictment.
Industry safety expert Sam Collins, who has worked on more than 200 productions involving firearms, noted the case highlights the film industry’s fragmented accountability system. “There’s often confusion about where responsibility lies between suppliers, armorers, and production management when it comes to on-set weapons safety,” Collins said.
The New Mexico Occupational Health and Safety Bureau previously issued a nearly $137,000 fine against Rust Movie Productions for what it described as willful and serious violations of workplace safety procedures. The company has contested those findings.
Kenney’s lawsuit also details the economic impact on his business, claiming revenues have decreased by approximately 70 percent since the incident. Court documents indicate his company previously serviced between 15-20 productions annually in New Mexico, Arizona and surrounding states.
Legal experts suggest the case demonstrates how the consequences of the “Rust” tragedy continue to expand beyond the immediate criminal and civil actions related to Hutchins’ death. “We’re seeing the secondary effects now, as various industry players attempt to protect their reputations and business interests,” said entertainment attorney Melissa Rodriguez, who is not involved in the case.
The Santa Fe film community, which has experienced significant growth over the past decade, has also felt the reverberations of the incident. Local production service providers report heightened scrutiny of safety credentials and insurance requirements.
The court has not yet set a hearing date for Kenney’s lawsuit. Representatives for Baldwin declined to comment on the pending litigation, while attorneys for Gutierrez-Reed and Halls have not responded to requests for comment.
The case is expected to add another layer to the already complex legal aftermath of one of Hollywood’s most tragic on-set accidents in recent memory.
Verify This Yourself
Use these professional tools to fact-check and investigate claims independently
Reverse Image Search
Check if this image has been used elsewhere or in different contexts
Ask Our AI About This Claim
Get instant answers with web-powered AI analysis
Related Fact-Checks
See what other fact-checkers have said about similar claims
Want More Verification Tools?
Access our full suite of professional disinformation monitoring and investigation tools
8 Comments
This lawsuit highlights the complex web of liability and responsibility in film production. While the armorer may have a legitimate grievance, publicly suing the production team seems like a risky move that could backfire. I hope all parties can find a way to work together constructively to understand what went wrong and implement effective safeguards to prevent similar incidents in the future.
Agreed. The focus should be on learning from this tragedy and making the necessary changes to improve safety, rather than engaging in legal battles that could further divide the parties involved.
The Rust incident was a terrible tragedy, and I can understand the armorer’s desire to protect his business. However, this lawsuit feels like it could further complicate an already messy situation. I hope the courts can provide a fair assessment of the facts and help guide the industry towards meaningful safety reforms, rather than getting bogged down in finger-pointing.
The armorer’s lawsuit raises some interesting questions about liability and accountability in film production. While his concerns about reputational damage are valid, it’s unclear if he has a strong legal case against the specific individuals named. This case could set an important precedent for how prop providers and production staff interact.
Prop weapons and ammunition are critical components of many films, so it’s concerning to see this level of finger-pointing. I hope the courts can provide some clarity on where the responsibilities lie to avoid similar disputes in the future.
This is a troubling development in the Rust tragedy. It’s understandable that the armorer would feel his reputation has been damaged, but making public accusations against the production team seems like a risky legal strategy. I hope this can be resolved amicably and the focus remains on improving safety on film sets.
Agreed. The best outcome would be for all parties to work together constructively to understand what went wrong and implement effective safety protocols to prevent similar incidents in the future.
This lawsuit seems like a risky move by the armorer, as it could further inflame tensions and distract from the core issues around the Rust tragedy. While he may feel his reputation has been unfairly maligned, publicly suing the production team may not be the most constructive path forward. Improved safety protocols and open communication would be a better approach.