A key procedural step in the civil lawsuit brought by Janel Grant against Vince McMahon and WWE has been decided, with a federal judge denying Grant’s motion for early discovery. The ruling, issued Friday by Judge Sarah F. Russell of the Connecticut District Court, does not address the merits of Grant’s claims but rather concerns the timing and scope of information gathering before arbitration proceedings are addressed.
Grant filed the lawsuit in January 2024, alleging sexual assault, and trafficking. Central to the legal battle is a nondisclosure agreement (NDA) Grant signed with McMahon and WWE, which includes a clause mandating arbitration for dispute resolution. Grant sought early access to records and depositions, arguing it was necessary to demonstrate potential coercion related to the NDA and to challenge the arbitration clause itself.
Judge Russell, however, found that Grant had not established “good cause” to warrant discovery before the defendants formally move to compel arbitration. In her order, the judge stated that the current record does not provide sufficient basis to determine if discovery is even *required* to resolve the arbitration issue. The ruling explicitly states the court “expresses no opinion as to the merits of these forthcoming arguments, or any other grounds that [Grant] may choose to assert in opposition to Defendants’ Motions to Compel Arbitration.”
This denial of early discovery is a significant, though not necessarily conclusive, setback for Grant’s legal strategy. It means she will have to await the filing of McMahon and WWE’s motions to compel arbitration before she can attempt to gather evidence supporting her claims. The judge did leave open the possibility of revisiting the discovery request once those motions are submitted, indicating she may then consider “limited, reciprocal discovery” – a process where both sides exchange information.
The decision follows a seven-month period of inactivity in the case while Judge Russell considered Grant’s motion. Legal observers note that this timeframe is within the typical range for federal judges, despite its length. The ruling underscores the procedural complexities inherent in cases involving NDAs and arbitration clauses, particularly those alleging serious misconduct.
The court has directed both parties to collaborate on a schedule for the next phase of proceedings. This includes establishing deadlines for McMahon and WWE to file their motions to compel arbitration, proposing dates for oral arguments on those motions, and determining whether the case should be referred to a magistrate judge for potential settlement discussions. A joint notice outlining these proposals is due on or before .
Notably, Judge Russell’s order makes clear that the ruling does not touch upon the factual allegations made in Grant’s complaint or the defense presented by McMahon and WWE. The focus remains solely on the procedural question of whether discovery should be allowed *before* the arbitration issue is addressed. Which means the core claims of sexual assault and trafficking remain unaddressed at this stage.
The case has already seen one significant development: former WWE executive John Laurinaitis was dropped as a defendant in May 2025 following a confidential settlement with Grant. His removal simplifies the legal landscape, focusing the litigation primarily on McMahon and WWE as entities.
As of now, neither Grant nor representatives for McMahon and WWE have issued public statements regarding Judge Russell’s decision. The next critical step will be the filing of the motions to compel arbitration, which will set the stage for the next round of legal maneuvering and potentially pave the way for a more comprehensive examination of the evidence in this high-profile case. The outcome of those motions will determine whether Grant can proceed with her claims in court or whether the dispute will be resolved through the private arbitration process stipulated in the NDA.
