WRESTLING NEWS

Vince McMahon & Linda McMahon Oppose Plaintiffs Anonymity In Ongoing WWE Lawsuit


Vince McMahon and Linda McMahon have formally opposed the ring boy plaintiffs’ request to continue litigating under anonymous “John Doe” names in their ongoing lawsuit.

According to Brandon Thurston of POST Wrestling, Vince McMahon and U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon filed oppositions asking a federal judge to require the seven former ring boys to proceed under their real names. Their filings argue that allowing anonymity would unfairly limit their ability to defend themselves as the case moves into the discovery phase.

The plaintiffs filed a motion earlier this month seeking to maintain anonymity and requesting a protective order to restrict how their identities are shared during discovery. While their names have already been disclosed to the defense, the plaintiffs — now in their 50s — argue that public disclosure would re-expose them to psychological harm, trauma, and unwanted attention.

The lawsuit alleges the plaintiffs were sexually abused as children, primarily by former WWF ring announcer Mel Phillips, who died in 2012. The ring boys claim Vince and Linda McMahon were negligent in preventing the alleged abuse. Both McMahons have denied any knowledge of or responsibility for the allegations.

The McMahons’ oppositions were filed on January 26 and were largely aligned. WWE and TKO have not filed oppositions and are not expected to do so, with the plaintiffs noting that the corporate entities have taken no position on whether anonymity should continue.

Attorneys for Vince and Linda also suggested that the court could consider more limited confidentiality measures rather than full anonymity.

In their filings, both McMahons cited recent cases involving Sean “P. Diddy” Combs and Kevin Spacey, in which plaintiffs were required to proceed under their real names. While those rulings were issued in New York, the current case is being heard in Maryland, meaning the court is not bound by those precedents but may consider them.

The plaintiffs have until February 6 to respond to the oppositions, with a decision on anonymity expected no earlier than February.





Source link

Related Articles

Back to top button