Janel Grant’s Team Files Response To Vince McMahon, WWE Trying to Stop Discovery Phase Of Lawsuit

Janel Grant’s legal team has filed a response to attempts by Vince McMahon, WWE, and John Laurinaitis to prevent their lawsuit from going into discovery. As noted, Grant’s team filed a motion requesting that the lawsuit move to the discovery phase, which the defendants have opposed saying that discovery would be premature at this point and a waste of time and money if the court decides that arbitration is the course to be taken. PWInsider reports that Grant filed a response on April 25th arguing against the opposition to discovery.

Grant’s team argued that the defendants haven’t shown good cause to prevent discovery from beginning, arguing:

“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 not yet ruled on whether the case should move to arbitration.