Vince McMahon Sex Trafficking Lawsuit Update – Janel Grant’s Motion for Early Discovery Denied By Judge

As noted before, former WWE employee Janel Grant filed a lawsuit in January of 2024 against former WWE/TKO Executive Chairman Vince McMahon accusing McMahon of committing sex trafficking and sexual abuse towards her during her time in the company. Grant filed a new amended lawsuit this past February detailing new evidence and claims against McMahon, WWE, and others. Grant had also a filed petition against a WWE Wellness doctor named Carlon Colker and his clinic in July of 2024 for medical records related to her lawsuit, which was court ordered to be released this past August.

Post Wrestling and Wrestlenomics’ Brandon Thurston reported that Judge Sarah F. Russell issued a ruling on Friday denying Grant’s request for early discovery in her lawsuit against Vince McMahon and WWE. Russell indicated in her ruling that Grant may renew this motion later in the proceedings.

In her ruling, Judge Russell stated that Grant had not established “good cause” for obtaining records and depositions before the defendants file their anticipated motions to compel arbitration.

Thurston reported that the judge left open the possibility of reconsidering the issue once those arbitration motions are submitted by the defendants.

In her ruling, Judge Russell stated that she could not determine yet whether allowing discovery at this point is needed to resolve the arbitration issue.

Portion of the Judge Russell’s ruling:

Plaintiff [Grant] seeks discovery to support several grounds for avoiding arbitration. The court expresses no opinion as to the merits of these forthcoming arguments, or any other grounds that Plaintiff may choose to assert in opposition to Defendants’ Motions to Compel Arbitration. But the court has determined that it cannot evaluate from the current record whether discovery from Defendants is required to resolve the applicability of defenses Plaintiff may raise to arbitration. Thus, Plaintiff has not met her burden to show good cause for taking discovery before responding to Defendants’ Motions to Compel Arbitration. Plaintiff may renew her Motion for Leave to Take Discovery in conjunction with filing her response in opposition to Defendants’ Motions to Compel. After reviewing the briefing, the court will determine whether to permit the parties to take limited, reciprocal discovery.

Thurston reported that Grant’s case is moving forward after seven months of inactivity while awaiting the judge’s ruling. Thurston also reported that the long wait for this case is within federal judges’ discretion over the time they may take to make decisions.

Russell reportedly also ordered the parties to meet and decide future deadlines for the defendants’ motions to compel arbitration, dates for oral arguments on that issue, and whether the parties want a referral to meet with a magistrate judge to consider a potential settlement.