A Vince McMahon motion has been denied by the judge in the lawsuit case surrounding his alleged sexual abuse of a former WWE employee.
In June, a ‘stay order’ was issued on the federal lawsuit filed by Janel Grant in January against Vince McMahon, WWE and John Laurinaitis.
This was initiated by the US government due to it performing its own investigation into allegations against the defendants, and meant the lawsuit is essentially on pause so as not to interfere.
However, in July, Grant did file a ‘pre-action discovery petition’ in state court against Peak Wellness, Inc and its owner Carlon M Colker MD.
The filing stated that Colker “routinely” treats WWE employees and talent, and alleged that he and Peak Wellness had several connections to the original lawsuit.
After this petition was filed, McMahon filed his own motion in an attempt to prevent Grant from using any evidence that would be gained as part of the petition, with McMahon claiming that Grant’s request violated the stay order.
On August 6, the judge in the case, Judge Jeffrey A Meyer, ruled that Grant did not violate the stay order by filing the petition to look into Peak Wellness and Colker, thus denying McMahon’s motion.
Meyer stated that Grant’s state court proceedings – such as the Peak Wellness petition – aren’t affected by the stay order on the federal court proceedings with the original lawsuit:
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)
Comments powered by CComment