Vince McMahon Sex Trafficking Lawsuit Update – Court Rejects McMahon’s Motion for Enforcement of Stay Order Against Janel Grant

As noted before, former WWE employee Janel Grant filed a lawsuit this past January against former TKO Executive Chairman Vince McMahon accusing McMahon of committing sex trafficking and sexual abuse towards her during her time in the company. Grant’s lawsuit was put on hold this past April over a request from the U.S. Department of Justice, who launched a criminal investigation into McMahon and joined the lawsuit as an “interested party.” Grant’s lawyers recently filed a petition against a WWE Wellness doctor and his clinic for medical records related to her lawsuit.

Wrestlenomics’ Brandon Thurston reported that Judge Jeffrey Meyer issued a ruling on Tuesday rejecting McMahon’s motion requesting a limited lifting of the federal court order stay and seeking enforcement of the order against Grant.

In his ruling, Meyer stated that Grant’s bill of discovery motion that was filed in the Connecticut Superior Court did not violate the federal stay order for the lawsuit due to it being beyond the scope of the federal order.

Meyer also stated that if McMahon has any objection to state court proceedings, then he should file his relief with the state court instead of the federal court.

Portion of official court ruling:

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ENFORCE COURT’S STAY ORDER (Doc. # 77). Defendant McMahon has filed a motion to enforce the Court’s stay order, and the Court has received and reviewed various sealed filings with respect to the motion. The motion stems from a bill of discovery action initiated by plaintiff Grant in Connecticut state court against certain non-parties to this action. The Court does not interpret its entry of the stay order to apply to state court proceedings that are outside the scope of discovery prescribed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governing the conduct of discovery in federal court litigation. Federal district courts do not ordinarily regulate or sit in review of proceedings in state courts, and the Court’s stay order did not purport to extend to any state court proceedings. If there is any objection to state court proceedings, relief should be should in state court rather than in this Court. Accordingly, the Court DENIES defendant McMahon’s motion to enforce the Court’s stay order for failure to show that there has been a violation of the Court’s stay order. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 8/6/2024. (Lewis, D) (Entered: 08/06/2024)