Carrot Top's Lawyer Seeks Court Restrictions on Brian Evans Over Alleged Extortion Attempt

Carrot Top's lawyer is seeking court-imposed restrictions on musician Brian Evans, escalating a legal battle involving allegations of extortion, disputed settlement demands and multiple court proceedings.

The comedian, whose real name is Scott Thompson, is represented by attorney Ronnie Bitman in the dispute with Evans.

According to USA Today, which obtained the emergency motion, Bitman asked a Florida court to impose 'immediate gatekeeping procedures' on Evans' future filings.

The 20 September motion seeks restrictions on Evans submitting new court documents without prior approval and asks that his electronic filing privileges be deactivated.

The request represents the latest development in a legal dispute between Thompson and Evans that has unfolded across multiple proceedings.

Carrot Top's Lawyer Pushes for Filing Restrictions

In the emergency motion, Bitman argues that tighter controls are needed over Evans' future filings.

Thompson's legal team alleges that Evans has used court filings and the threat of publicly disclosing private material as leverage in the dispute.

The motion asks the court to establish a screening process that could require Evans to obtain permission before submitting certain documents and restrict material Thompson's legal team considers irrelevant or inflammatory.

The requested measures remain proposals from Thompson's lawyers rather than findings made by the court.

As of the latest reporting, there has been no reported ruling granting the 20 September restrictions.

Evans has challenged the allegations against him and has denied threatening to release the material at the centre of the dispute.

Alleged Extortion Dispute at Centre of Legal Fight

The latest motion follows allegations from Thompson's legal team that Evans sought substantial payments while threatening to place private material into publicly accessible court records.

Bitman has characterised the alleged demands as an attempt to pressure Thompson through the possibility of unwanted publicity.

Evans disputes that account and has denied that his actions amounted to extortion.

The competing claims have become part of a broader legal dispute between the two men, who have been involved in multiple proceedings.

The 20 September motion shifts part of the dispute towards how future court documents can be filed and whether additional controls should be imposed before new material reaches the public docket.

If granted, the requested restrictions could give the court greater oversight over Evans' future submissions.

Such an order would not, by itself, determine whether the underlying allegations made by either side are true.

Previous Federal Case Was Dismissed

Court records show that Evans previously filed a separate federal lawsuit against Thompson in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida on 8 July 2026.

That case did not proceed to a final determination of the underlying claims.

Evans voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice on 6 August 2026, according to the federal docket. The court subsequently closed the case and terminated the remaining deadlines.

A request for a temporary restraining order filed during the case had also been denied before the dismissal.

Because Evans dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice, the dismissal did not amount to a final ruling on the merits of his allegations.

The current Broward County dispute forms part of a broader series of legal proceedings involving Evans and Thompson rather than a continuation of the closed federal case.

What Happens Next?

Attention now turns to whether the Broward County court will impose any of the filing restrictions requested by Thompson's attorney.

The court could grant the proposed measures, reject them or impose narrower restrictions after considering the parties' arguments.

Until a judge rules on the allegations, claims of extortion or other wrongdoing remain disputed assertions rather than established findings.

For Thompson's legal team, the 20 September filing represents an effort to place tighter judicial controls over how the dispute proceeds and what Evans may submit to the court in future.