Attorneys representing WWE employee Janel Grant filed a new response on April 25 in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, opposing efforts by Vince McMahon, John Laurinaitis, and WWE to delay the start of the discovery phase in her ongoing lawsuit. Discovery would allow both sides to exchange documents and evidence ahead of a potential trial.
As previously reported, McMahon and the other defendants have argued that Grant’s claims should be handled through private arbitration rather than in open court, pointing to an arbitration clause in a nondisclosure agreement Grant previously signed. They further contend that moving forward with discovery now would be inefficient and costly if the court later decides the matter belongs in arbitration. The defense also cited federal court procedures in Connecticut that permit delaying discovery until a judge rules on whether a case will proceed publicly or privately.
However, Grant’s legal team countered on April 25, arguing the defendants have failed to demonstrate “good cause” to justify halting discovery. They stated:
“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. […] An anticipated motion to compel arbitration that Defendants have not filed yet does not constitute good cause to stay discovery.”
Grant’s attorneys also highlighted that even if the defense files such a motion, substantial questions remain regarding the enforceability of the arbitration clause, particularly around whether Grant signed the agreement under duress or coercion. They noted that recent communications, which may fall under the crime-fraud exception, could also factor into the Court’s evaluation. Grant’s team anticipates seeking targeted discovery to aid the Court in assessing its jurisdiction over the case.
Further, Grant’s attorneys emphasized that they had complied with court procedures by requesting a scheduling conference and filing a Rule 26(f) statement to initiate discussions about case timelines. They criticized the defendants for refusing to engage in setting a discovery schedule, accusing them of trying to delay the process unfairly.
They added,
“The sweeping stay relief sought by Defendants here is unwarranted and should not be granted.”
As of this writing, the Court has not yet ruled on whether the case will proceed through arbitration or continue in federal court.
Previously, on March 28, Grant’s attorneys submitted a report detailing the scope of discovery they intend to pursue. Their requests cover a wide range of materials, including WWE’s internal communications, records tied to alleged payments McMahon made to other women, company policies on sexual harassment, and travel records for McMahon, Laurinaitis, and Brock Lesnar.
