Class Action Lawsuit Against WWE Over Misleading Claims About PLE Access on ESPN Unlimited Update – Court Grants WWE’s Motion Halting Discovery

As noted before, a class action lawsuit was filed this past January against WWE and ESPN alleging that both companies had committed deceptive marketing practices regarding WWE moving their Premium Live Events (PLEs) to ESPN’s new ESPN Unlimited streaming service. These claims revolved around marketing from both WWE and ESPN telling all existing ESPN subscribers that they would have access to WWE PLEs for free when that was not the case for those with certain cable or streaming providers. WWE filed a motion this past April seeking to force the lawsuit into private arbitration. ESPN and BAMTech, LLC (ESPN subsidiary that handles their streaming technology) were recently added by the court as official defendants in the lawsuit.

PWInsider’s Mike Johnson reported that the U.S. District Court in Connecticut issued a ruling earlier today granting WWE’s motion that would halt discovery in the ongoing lawsuit against them.

In the motion, WWE had argued that Discovery should be halted until the court rules on the existing attempts from the defendants to move the lawsuit to private arbitration. Discovery phase in a lawsuit is when the two sides are required by the court to bring evidence and open up their records to each other.

Portion of court ruling:

“The Court was concerned to read, in the Plaintiffs’ supplemental brief, that WWE had been sanctioned for evidence spoliation in other cases. (likely the WWE stockholders case over the Endeavor purchase of WWE, which was recently set for settlement) But in this case, the appropriate way to address that concern is to remind WWE of the severe consequences that can be imposed if relevant evidence is lost or destroyed after the duty of preservation attaches.  To force WWE to undergo the broad and burdensome discovery that the Plaintiffs seek on behalf of themselves and their proposed class, when WWE evidently has a non-frivolous argument that those claims should be addressed in an arbitral forum on an individual basis and under potentially restrictive discovery procedures, would be a disproportionate response. While the Court understands the Plaintiffs’ concern, it is insufficient to deny a stay.”

Johnson reported that there is currently no time limit for the court to issue a ruling on whether the lawsuit case will be moved to arbitration or not.