Vince McMahon Sex Trafficking Lawsuit Update – Janel Grant’s Attorneys Files Opposition to McMahon, John Laurinaitis, WWE Motions to Prevent Discovery Phase

As noted before, former WWE employee Janel Grant filed a lawsuit in January of 2024 against former TKO Executive Chairman Vince McMahon accusing McMahon of committing sex trafficking and sexual abuse towards her during her time in the company. Besides McMahon, WWE and former WWE Head of Talent Relations John Laurinaitis were also named defendants in the lawsuit. Grant filed a new amended lawsuit this past February detailing new evidence and claims against McMahon, Laurinaitis, WWE, and others. Grant had also filed a new motion this past March requesting the start of the discovery phase while McMahon, Laurinaitis, and WWE filed motions opposing this.

PWInsider’s Mike Johnson reported that Grant’s attorneys filed a motion before The United States District Court of Connecticut on May 25th arguing against McMahon, Laurinaitis and WWE’s attempts to prevent the discovery phase for the lawsuit from commencing. Johnson reported that a discovery phase is when each side requests documents from the other and also to learn what the other is planning to present before the court during a trial.

In the filing, Grant’s attorneys argued that the defendants have not shown “good cause” to prevent the start of discovery.

“Defendants argue that this Court should stay discovery simply on the basis of a motion to compel arbitration that has not yet been filed, is not pending before this Court, and that the Court has explicitly instructed them not to renew at this time. Defendants’ motion to stay discovery should be denied because there is no good cause to overcome the presumption in this District that discovery should proceed, even during the pendency of dispositive motions. Connecticut caselaw is clear that the filing of a dispositive motion does not automatically constitute good cause to stay discovery and, nonetheless, Defendants’ motion to stay discovery is unripe because no such dispositive motion is pending here. An anticipated motion to compel arbitration that Defendants have not filed yet does not constitute good cause to stay discovery.

In any event, the anticipated motion raises material issues of fact regarding the legality and enforceability of the arbitration clause at issue in this case, including the circumstances surrounding the contract’s formation, issues of Plaintiff signing under duress and coercion, and communications recently found to be subject to the crime-fraud exception. Plaintiff anticipates seeking targeted discovery at the appropriate time to assist the Court in assessing its jurisdiction over this matter.

Plaintiff requested a scheduling conference and filed a Rule 26(f) statement to comply with the rules of this court and avoid any prejudice. In the past, Defendants have rebuffed Plaintiff’s efforts to stipulate a reasonable case calendar without involving the Court.  Recently, Defendants argued that Ms. Grant engaged in “undue delay” because she did not seek leave to amend her complaint last year, notwithstanding that the government requested a stay of these proceedings after it was filed.  As that stay of all proceedings in this matter has been lifted,, Ms. Grant is obligated to progress this case unless the Court rules otherwise.

Plaintiff agrees with Defendants that the Parties should endeavor to conserve judicial resources. Ms. Grant is open to negotiating a reasonable discovery schedule—which she endeavored to do at the attempted 26(f) conference. However, Defendants’ blanket refusal to engage in the administrative business of this case is not sufficient to meet their obligations under the rules of this Court. The sweeping stay relief sought by Defendants here is unwarranted and should not be granted.”

Johnson reported that the court has yet to make a ruling on whether it agreed or disagreed that arbitration is the correct route for this lawsuit.