Nick Khan:

All credit to [Vince]. I only have admiration for him. As Paul said — Triple H said — at his Hall of Fame speech, family’s complicated. And, you know, obviously, we don’t need to get into any of that. But in terms of business, that guy’s an empire builder.”

Click to expand...

Stephanie:

“Absolutely he is. And no one can take that away from him, no matter what, including himself, who is probably his biggest nemesis — is himself.”

Click to expand...

Former WWE employee Janel Grant submitted requests for evidence on Monday in her sex trafficking lawsuit against WWE and Vince McMahon.

The court allowed Grant to file a motion requesting discovery specifically related to the issue of whether the defendants would be allowed to move the case into arbitration, a private process where her dispute with the defendants would be resolved out of the public eye.

In her January 2024 lawsuit, Grant alleged that McMahon sexually abused and trafficked her while she was employed by WWE, and that the company enabled and concealed his misconduct.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, is currently at a stage where the parties are arguing about whether the case should remain in public court or be moved to private arbitration. The defendants cite the arbitration clause that was a part of the $3 million nondisclosure agreement that Grant and McMahon signed in January 2022. Grant contends that the clause is unenforceable. McMahon signed the agreement on behalf of both himself and the company he was in charge of at the time.

Grant’s legal team is requesting a broad range of internal WWE and McMahon communications, including board materials, NDA drafts, and documents already reviewed by federal investigators, to challenge the enforceability of the arbitration clause. Such evidence could support Grant’s argument that she was under duress and that the NDA should not be enforced, a judgment that will ultimately be decided by Judge Sarah F. Russell.

Grant’s counsel claimed in new filings submitted Monday night that Grant signed the NDA “in an extreme state of duress and coercion at the hands of Vince McMahon.”

Her attorneys further alleged that the NDA was “drafted and signed in the furtherance of crimes, including several violations of federal securities laws by Defendant McMahon,” referring to the order from the Securities and Exchange Commission this past January, which required McMahon to repay WWE $1.3 million as well as a $400,000 fine.

Grant also cites a February ruling by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld a lower court’s finding that communications between McMahon and his former attorney—likely Jerry McDevitt—were not protected by attorney-client privilege because they fell under the crime-fraud exception. The lower court proceedings were under seal, but the Second Circuit publicly affirmed that privilege was pierced under the crime-fraud exception, with the court finding probable cause that McMahon used outside counsel to further a scheme to conceal misconduct through NDAs involving two women formerly employed by WWE, one of whom is Grant.

The plaintiff’s filing notes that the parties held a meeting this past Friday, but that the defendants “declined to offer any documents” in response to her requests for discovery.

“WWE and McMahon had the opportunity to voluntarily provide discovery and they refused,” a representative for Grant said in a statement provided to POST Wrestling. “They claim the NDA and its arbitration clause are enforceable, but resist any attempts to investigate whether Ms. Grant was coerced into signing it—facts that go to the heart of its enforceability. They can’t have it both ways. Today we asked the Court to allow that discovery to proceed, Ms. Grant deserves to have the facts about her case.”

Requests for comment to separate representatives of WWE and McMahon were not immediately returned. They’re due to file oppositions to Grant’s discovery request by next Monday, June 30.

Grant’s attorneys say her discovery requests involve only materials already produced related to cases brought by the SEC and the crime-fraud issue litigated in the appellate court. They say that evidence could be produced immediately because those materials have already been screened for privilege.

Among the 20 categories of documents Grant is seeking are communications with McMahon’s wife and former WWE executive, Linda McMahon—currently serving as the U.S. Secretary of Education—as well as Dr. Carlon Colker, board materials spanning six years, and documents already deemed discoverable under the crime-fraud exception by federal courts.

Addressing the defendants, Grant requested the following categories of documents and communications:

1. Documents sufficient to show the identity of each individual who participated in drafting and/or reviewing the NDA.
2. All communications between You, on the one hand, and any other person(s), on the other, concerning terminating Ms. Grant’s employment and/or the NDA.
3. All communications between any of Your employees or agents, on the one hand, and any other person(s), on the other, regarding concerning [sic] terminating Ms. Grant’s employment and/or the NDA.
4. All communications between any of WWE’s employees, officers, directors, or agents, on the one hand, and any other person(s), on the other, concerning terminating Ms. Grant’s employment and/or the NDA.
5. All drafts of the NDA.
6. All communications between You, on the one hand, and Linda McMahon, on the other, concerning Ms. Grant and/or the NDA.
7. All communications between You, on the one hand, and Dr. Carlon Colker, on the other, concerning Ms. Grant and/or the NDA.
8. Ms. Grant’s complete employment file.
9. All documents and communications generated by WWE’s human resources personnel, including but not limited to communications to and from Meredith Hutt, regarding Ms. Grant’s employment and separation from WWE and/or the NDA.
10. All communications between You and/or Your counsel, on the one hand, and Jonathan Shapiro, Esq., on the other, concerning the NDA.
11. All Board Materials from January 1, 2019 to January 30, 2025.
12. All minutes of the Board’s Audit Committee from January 1, 2019 to January 30, 2025.
13. All documents and communications between You, on the one hand, and Endeavor, on the other, concerning disclosure of WWE’s litigation liabilities from January 1, 2019 to April 3, 2023.
14. All documents and communications produced by You to government investigators, including but not limited to the Department of Justice and/or Securities and Exchange Commission, concerning Ms. Grant and/or the NDA.
15. Documents sufficient to show (a) all subpoenas and/or voluntary requests for production and/or testimony received by You and/or Your counsel concerning the SEC Action and (b) Your responses and objections, if any, to the government’s requests.
16. All documents and communications concerning WWE’s claim that, “[a]lthough WWE was a party to the Settlement Agreements—one signed in 2019 and one signed in 2022—McMahon failed to disclose the agreements to WWE’s Board of Directors (“Board”), legal department, accountants, financial reporting personnel, and auditor[,]” in the SEC Action.
17. All documents and communications collected and reviewed in response to a request and/or subpoena from the government; determined to be responsive; withheld under an assertion of privilege; and later found to be non-privileged and discoverable under the crime fraud exception by the Southern District of New York, as affirmed by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in In re Grand Jury Subpoenas Dated September 13 (2025), Docket Nos. 24-1588-cv (L), 24-1589-cv (Con) (2d. Cir. Feb 7, 2025).
18. Documents sufficient to show the scope and methodology of the Board’s Internal Investigation.
19. Documents sufficient to identify all person(s) interviewed in the course of the Board’s Internal Investigation.
20. All documents and communications concerning the findings and recommendations of the Board’s Internal Investigation.

Click to expand...

The defendants, in their opposition filings next week, could challenge whether these categories are relevant to the arbitration question.

In a separate state-level action, Grant is seeking communications and other evidence from Colker, a physician whom she says McMahon directed her to seek treatment from.

Grant’s attorneys asked the court to delay further filings in the case until discovery is completed. WWE and McMahon filed their latest arguments for moving the case to arbitration on June 16.

Currently, Grant’s opposition to the defendants’ motions is due on July 11. The defendants are allowed to file a reply by August 1.

Grant claims she signed the NDA under duress. She says McMahon applied immense pressure during the agreement’s negotiation. According to Grant, McMahon urged “that her refusal would not only jeopardize McMahon, his family, and the Company, but would surely force Plaintiff to become a public headline, suffer reputational ruin (including from pornographic content McMahon had captured), and face legal consequences from McMahon’s and WWE’s near-limitless resources.”