Vince McMahon responds to Janel Grant’s motion to strike comments

Vince McMahon’s legal team filed a new memorandum today.

Lawyers representing the former WWE Chairman have responded to Janel Grant’s legal team filing a motion to strike comments included in McMahon’s motion to compel arbitration submitted on April 23.

Grant’s team contends that McMahon used the motion to spread “inflammatory lies” and that it was used “as a platform to launch vicious falsehoods attacking Janel’s moral character in an attempt to harass and intimidate her into submission.”

Today, McMahon’s team referred to Grant’s motion as the “height of hypocrisy.”

The full memorandum submitted today can be read here.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike is meritless and the height of hypocrisy. Having falsely accused Defendant in a public forum, despite an obligation to arbitrate, in an inflammatory 67- page Complaint that completely disregards the mandate of Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff now seeks to strike the Preliminary Statement of the Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration (Dkt. No. 30-1) on the purported basis that it is too “inflammatory.”

The memorandum continues to state that Grant’s lawsuit includes several text messages between her and McMahon but does not include Grant’s responses. They contend her responses to McMahon’s texts “are equally and often more aggressive and provocative.” However, it also notes that McMahon is no longer in possession of those text messages, as he has since deleted them.

Ignoring her obligations to keep the nature of their relationship or the dispute private, the Complaint unnecessarily includes private sexual text messages from Defendant without including any of Plaintiff’s responses to those texts—responses which are equally and often more aggressive and provocative than Defendant’s communications and show not only that the relationship was consensual, but also that in many instances the Plaintiff was the initiator.

Defendant’s communications and show not only that the relationship was consensual, but also that in many instances the Plaintiff was the initiator. Indeed, while Defendant no longer is in possession of the text messages between the Parties as he deleted them when he broke off the relationship, the discovery in this case will show that Plaintiff sent him sexually explicit images of herself and texted him to say, among other things:

• That she was in love with him and he was the love of her life;
• That he was her best friend;
• That she wanted to have sex with him and providing graphic detail;
• That she fantasized about being held down, enjoyed being in pain, and wanted rough sex;
• That she wanted Defendant to watch her have sex with other people and know about her sex with others;
• That she wanted Defendant to give her thousands of dollars for clothes, plastic surgery, and other gifts;
• That she wanted to have a future with Defendant even after signing the Agreement; and
• That she wanted Defendant to keep living in the same building, so she could continue to see him, even after signing the Agreement.

“For the foregoing reasons, Defendant respectfully requests that Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike be denied,” the memorandum concludes.

Source