Representatives for Janel Grant filed a motion in federal district court in Connecticut on Friday in opposition to pausing discovery in her civil case against Vince McMahon, John Laurinaitis and World Wrestling Entertainment.
Grant is suing McMahon and the other defendants for sex harassment, sex trafficking and other allegations.
Discovery is the gathering of evidence and information to be shared by both parties for a trial, and which both parties would base their arguments.
“Defendants can’t have it both ways,” reps for Grant said in a statement to SEScoops on Tuesday. “When it comes to safety in the workplace, they can’t assert that allegations of harm are taken seriously while using stall tactics to delay an examination of facts. These are irreconcilable paths. Unlike avoidance, there is dignity and integrity of process for all parties in discovery. Ms. Grant’s fight for justice continues.”
SEScoops asked representatives for Vince McMahon for a statement on Tuesday, but hadn’t heard back at the time this article was published.
Earlier this month, McMahon, Laurinaitis and WWE filed motions to stay discovery in the case pending whether Judge Sarah F. Russell would allow Grant’s amended complaint to move forward in the case and on the expectation they would file motions to compel arbitration. The defendants believe Grant’s case should be a matter for an arbitration process per the rules of a non-disclosure agreement she signed with McMahon. A hearing was scheduled for a similar motion last year, but the case was stayed at the request of federal prosecutors.
“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,” the Grant motion said.
The complaint said the “anticipated” arbitration motion raises material issues regarding the legality of the arbitration clause in the NDA signed by Grant and McMahon, issues of duress and coercion placed on the plaintiff and “communications recently found to be subject to the crime-fraud exception.”
The motion said the court and precedent “expect parties to move their cases forward while it considers dispositive motions,” referring to the anticipated arbitration motion.
“The sweeping stay relief sought by Defendants here is unwarranted and should not be granted.”
