Want more wrestling news, rumors, and results? Be sure to visit PWInsider.com and PWInsiderXtra.com.
Attorneys for WWE employee Janel Grant filed a response before The United States District Court of Connecticut on 4/25, arguing against VInce McMahon, John Laurinaitis and WWE's attempts to prevent the discovery phase of her lawsuit from commencing. That phase would allow each side to request documents and learn what the other is planning to present before the court during trial.
As PWInsider.com has previously reported, McMahon and the other defendants have argued that the lawsuit should be in private arbitration, not a public courtroom, citing an arbitration clause in the nondisclosure agreement that Grant signed. They also arguing that allowing discovery to begin now could result in unnecessary expenses and effort if the judge ultimately agrees to send the case to arbitration. They also argued that Connecticut federal court rules allow for discovery to be delayed until the court determines whether the case will stay in court or move to arbitration.
Grant's attorneys argued on 4/25 that the defendants have not shown "good cause" to prevent the start of discovery, citing:
"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."
The Court has yet to make a ruling on whether it agreed arbitration is the correct route.
On 3/28, Grant’s attorneys submitted a report outlining the scope of the discovery they intend to pursue and a proposed timeline for the case. They have been seeking access to a broad range of records, including internal communications from WWE and potentially from anyone affiliated with the company. Grant is also asking for records related to alleged payments McMahon made to multiple women, along with WWE’s policies regarding sexual harassment - and travel records for McMahon, Laurinaitis, and Brock Lesnar.
For details on Grant's Amended lawsuit, click here.
If you enjoy PWInsider.com you can check out the AD-FREE PWInsider Elite section, which features exclusive audio updates, news, our critically acclaimed podcasts, interviews and more by clicking here!
Bang On Casino
