August 20, 2024 • 28 mins
Welcome to Litigation Nation! In this episode, hosts Danessa Watkins and Jack Sanker dive into two intriguing legal cases. First, they discuss Disney's attempt to enforce a mandatory arbitration provision in a wrongful death case stemming from an allergic reaction at Disney World. Then, they explore the allegations of sexual misconduct and medical malpractice in a lawsuit filed against WWE's Vince McMahon. Join them as they dissect the legal intricacies and questionable decisions made by the parties involved.
Tune in every other week for new episodes on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, and more. Don't miss out on the latest legal insights and court opinions from across the country!
- (00:00) - Intro
- (01:20) - Disney wants to dismiss a wrongful death lawsuit because of a Disney Plus agreement
- (13:50) - Former WWE employee suing Vince McMahon seeks medical records in defamation lawsuit
- (27:55) - Outro
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Danessa Watkins (00:05):
Welcome to litigation nation. I'm your
host, Danessa Watkins, alongwith my co host, Jack Sanker. As
a reminder, on this show, wediscuss interesting legal topics
and court opinions from acrossthe country. And despite our own
crazy litigation schedules, Jackand I commit to presenting new
content every other week. Soplease subscribe to, like, share
(00:25):
our Litigation Nation episodeswherever you get your podcasts,
Apple, Spotify, YouTube,etcetera.
So what do we have teed up fortoday, Jack?
Jack Sanker (00:35):
Disney is testing the limits of their mandatory
arbitration provisions in theirterms of service. They argue
that in a wrongful death casewhich arises out of one of their
parks should be thrown outbecause the decedent agreed to a
mandatory arbitration when shesigned up for the streaming
service, Disney plus.
Danessa Watkins (00:54):
Interesting. Alright. I'm going to cover a
twist in the rape and sextrafficking case filed by a
former WWE employee against exCEO Vince McMahon. The plaintiff
slash alleged victim is nowbeing threatened with a
defamation lawsuit by thephysician who McMahon allegedly
(01:15):
sent her to for undisclosedtreatment. All that and more,
here's what you need to know.
Jack Sanker (01:24):
So the Disney story, it's I'll start with you
know, it's a tragic story. It'sa wrongful death case, so it's
never going to be exactly, youknow, funny, of course. But this
is a really quirky storyinvolving stretching, I think,
the logic, and some of thebaseline elements of kind of
(01:50):
basic contract law, which we'llsee here. So backing up to what
actually happened in 2023, adoctor from New York, his name
was, Amy Tangshan. Sorry if Ihave, her name wrong.
I did look up how to pronounceit, but I still probably
butchered it. Her and herhusband visited Disney World in
(02:12):
Orlando. They went to an Irishthemed restaurant there, which,
as I understand, wasindependently owned and
operated, but I think did havesome type of relationship. May I
don't know if it's like alicensing thing or whatever with
the Disney World Resort.According to the complaint filed
by her widow or husband, theyboth informed the staff
repeatedly about her, nut anddairy allergies before ordering.
(02:36):
She ordered a vegan fritter,scallops, onion rings, and vegan
shepherd's pie. Afterwards, shebegan suffering a severe
allergic reaction. She haddifficulty breathing. She
collapsed. She wasn't she wasable to self administer, an
EpiPen, but, nonetheless, shedied.
So her husband, sued therestaurant, which, like I said,
(02:58):
I I believe is independentlyowned and operated, and also
Disney Parks for wrongful death.On its website, Disney does warn
that they, do not have separateallergy free kitchens, and they
cannot guarantee a menu item iscompletely free of allergens,
for their for the differentrestaurants that are part of the
resort. So, you know, I thinkthey have some type of liability
(03:20):
defense that's gonna come out ofthat. Nevertheless, the
complaint alleges that the folksat the restaurant were put on
notice multiple times of herallergies and and had basically
said, don't worry. This is fine.
Something along those lines. Soliability, ultimately, you know,
who knows? But here's theinteresting part, and this is
why we're gonna cover it today,is that Disney filed a motion to
(03:43):
dismiss the lawsuit arguing thatpursuant to its terms of use
agreement, which the decedentand her husband were a party to,
all disputes with Disney must behandled through mandatory
arbitration, which is not allthat uncommon except, when did
the claimants here agree tothis? And according to Disney,
it's when they signed up forDisney Plus, which is a
(04:04):
streaming platform, thatcontained the terms of service
service agreement and themandatory arbitration provision.
Danessa Watkins (04:11):
Stop it.
Jack Sanker (04:12):
Yes. So, there's more to it than that, but this
is in the motion to dismiss.They Disney is saying, no. No.
No.
When you subscribe to DisneyPlus, you agreed that any and
all disputes between us will beresolved via mandatory
arbitration, including, I guess,you know, the, any, incidents
(04:34):
where you come to Disney Worldand choke to death. Or or
Danessa Watkins (04:37):
Alright. Well, because aren't usually
arbitration clauses, they'rewithin the the four corners of
that contract. So you wouldthink, like, the contract is for
Disney plus services.
Jack Sanker (04:49):
Yeah.
Danessa Watkins (04:49):
So any claims arising from Disney plus
services, you have to go toarbitration.
Jack Sanker (04:54):
So I'll I'll read the I'll read part of it to you.
This is the Disney plus fromDisney plus, TOS here. Disney
LLC and or its affiliates orsubsidiaries, collectively
Disney, are pleased to provideyou certain websites, software,
applications, content, products,and services in any media format
or channel, now known or hereand after devised, blah blah
(05:18):
blah, which may be brandedDisney, ABC, ESPN, Marvel,
Pixar, Lucasfilm, FX,Searchlight Pictures, 20th
Century Studios, NationalGeographic, or another brand
owned or licensed by Disney.References to Disney products
are also included in any anyelements of Disney products. Any
disputes between you and us,except disputes resolved in
small claims or relating to theownership or enforcement of
(05:41):
intellectual property rights, ofcourse, are subject to a class
action waiver and must beresolved by individual binding
arbitration, and then it directsyou to the, the longer provision
in the agreement in section 8.
You can look this up on theDisney website if you wanna take
a look at it. But it's, yes. Anyany dispute at all except those
(06:02):
which were falling to a smallclaims court or they have to
deal with intellectual property,according to this, for, for
anything you could think of,really, is going to be subject
to the mandatory arbitrationagreement. And that's, yeah,
that's one of the bases for themotion to dismiss. Now it's
worth noting that there isanother TOS here, one that, the
(06:26):
widow or husband would haveagreed to when he purchased the
tickets to Disney World, andthat's, like, to me, makes a
little more sense, you know, tosay, hey.
You're coming to, like, a themepark. Part of that is we're
gonna settle disputes viamandatory arbitration. You have
to check here or whatever. Yeah.And, like, setting aside kind
of, like, whatever opinions youhave on mandatory provisions in
the first place, especially whenthey're, like, rolled into, what
(06:50):
do they call this?
Click click wrap?
Danessa Watkins (06:52):
Yeah.
Jack Sanker (06:52):
Yeah. Like this where it's just a, you know,
check this box to move on typething, and no one in the world
has ever read these.
Danessa Watkins (06:59):
Mhmm.
Jack Sanker (07:01):
So that to me seems a little less stretched, but,
the but the Disney plus one isreal. I mean, that's that's
that's one of the arguments thatthey're making.
Danessa Watkins (07:11):
I can't believe they're making that argument.
Yeah. There's no way that Imean, because if anything,
they're creating bad law forthemselves, I would think.
Jack Sanker (07:19):
Oh my goodness. I mean, so here's what Disney says
in its filing. It says that the,husband agreed to these terms
when he signed up for 1 monthfree trial of its streaming.
Come on. This is, Disney plus in2019.
By the way, this accidenthappened in 2022. Wow. I'm
sorry. 2023. So it's they agreedto it 4 4 years prior to, the
(07:41):
unfortunate death, that occurredhere.
Disney ads that the whateverhusband accepted the terms again
when he used when he used hisDisney account to buy the
tickets from the theme park. AndI actually wasn't quite sure
about that, and I I went to pullthe the motion. I couldn't do it
because I would I would guess,so much traffic to, like, this
local court website that I wastrying to get on that it had
(08:04):
crashed repeatedly, so I I couldnot pull the motion. I'm sorry.
I did wanna read it, but, youknow, I wasn't able to.
But in any event, that's what anumber of outlets that have that
have read in our reporting. Thatlooks like that looks right to
me. And, so yeah. I mean, it'sit's this Disney account is
(08:25):
where this this TOS kind oflives. And, when they when they
use it to do anything,apparently, they are ascending
to this mandatory agreement.
Danessa Watkins (08:34):
And they list all those other companies, which
obviously are under, Disney'sumbrella. But so just thinking
about this. So that couldsigning up for Disney Plus,
having this agreement means youcould go to a ESPN zone, get
injured there, and they couldhold you under this.
Jack Sanker (08:54):
Marvel, Pixar, Lucasfilm, Disney, ABC, FX,
Searchlight Pictures, 20thCentury Studios, National
Geographic, or any other brandowned or licensed by Disney. So
which, like, as always areminder of, like, how much of
the entertainment sphere Disneyowns. I always forget. You know?
Mhmm.
But it's, you know, it's likeeverything. Mhmm. So, yeah,
they're asserting that they arethat, effectively, if you, like,
(09:17):
participate in any media at allin in in 2024, the year of our
lord, that you are subject tomandatory arbitration. I mean,
I'm not licensed in Florida. Ihaven't dug in here, much beyond
this.
The use of these mandatorybinding arbitration agreements
(09:37):
has long been criticized as away that big corporations can
effectively snuff out claimants,the rights to a jury trial at
least, by slipping into thelengthy, click wrap TOS like
this, which, as I mentioned, noone really reads. And, you know,
I on one hand, I kind ofunderstand, like, if you're
buying tickets to a theme parkand then you agree to the kind
(09:58):
of standard, like, holdharmless, you know, waivers of
liability and then etcetera,whether or not you agree with
that, that's not outlandish.But, relying on the Disney plus
thing is just bizarre. And ifand if, like, I'm I don't know
which firm filed this. I'm surethey're they know what they're
doing and they're, you know,just being zealous advocates,
(10:19):
but I wonder if there's, like,some PR guy at at Disney that's
like, hold on.
Our lawyers filed what? Yeah.No. Seriously. Like, hang on a
sec.
You know, it's I mean
Danessa Watkins (10:31):
I mean, as a litigator, you always have a
million arguments you can make.Well, not always, but if you're
lucky. But you never throwspaghetti against the wall.
Like, you pick your best and gowith it.
Jack Sanker (10:41):
Especially if, like, it's it's going to, like
and it was all over, like, kindof the places I go to look for
headlines, you know, to to toread and figure out what we're
gonna cover. This was all ofeverything because it's, like,
such an absurd thing that iftrue I mean, the amount of TOS
that you click through in agiven day for the apps that
(11:05):
you're using, the software thatyou're using on your computer,
and, like, just a million otherthings. I mean, I don't know. It
it this just can't be the casethat this is how it's gonna be
enforced, one way or the other.So we will see, to what extent
the motion is granted or denied.
I'll be very interested to seewhat happens, but, this is also
one of those things where, like,Disney recently I mean, for,
(11:27):
like, a 100 years has been,like, America's entertainment
company in, like, past, like,couple years. Just keeps just
stepping in it, like,politically or, like, legally. I
mean, there was the wholedispute around the land, rights
that Disney had in Florida,which we we covered in a
previous episode. It was, kindof a, a deeply personal feud
(11:52):
between Disney and governor RonDeSantis. And this just seems
like one of those things where,like, hey.
No one likes mandatoryprovisions already, and this is
just gonna draw a lot ofnegative attention to that as a
a body of law, and it's, youknow, gonna hurt Disney maybe in
the long run.
Danessa Watkins (12:12):
Oh, for sure.
Jack Sanker (12:12):
Yeah.
Danessa Watkins (12:13):
Definitely. And what court was this in? This was
in state court in Florida?
Jack Sanker (12:16):
Yes. It was. I don't I don't recall which
county. Like I said, I wastrying to get into it, and then,
you know, the website keptcrashing probably because all
the nosy attorneys like mewanted to sniff around this
filing and and and see if wecould see if I could copy it for
my clients.
Danessa Watkins (12:32):
Yeah. Right. I just hope that they, that the
judge actually writes an opinionon it because, you know, it's an
issue of law. Yeah. So, theycertainly can make an opinion on
it.
And,
Jack Sanker (12:47):
And you you would it stretches some of the
baseline elements, like, in theidea of, like, mutually,
informed consent, meeting of theminds, if you will Mhmm. That
kind of underlies, like,baseline con baseline contract
concepts
Danessa Watkins (13:04):
Mhmm.
Jack Sanker (13:05):
As well as, you know, limited in scope and
foreseeability and just theapplicability here of signing up
for Disney plus and thenrealizing that you've waived
your rights to a wrongful deathlawsuit.
Danessa Watkins (13:19):
Well, even if
Jack Sanker (13:20):
does not follow the other. You know? Right.
Danessa Watkins (13:22):
And even if it happened in the same year
Jack Sanker (13:24):
Yeah.
Danessa Watkins (13:24):
I still think it would be too much. And then
the facts in this case are justso much more egregious that it
happened, what, 4 years apart,and it was a free trial. It's
not like he continued hismembership.
Jack Sanker (13:35):
Yeah. It's so
Danessa Watkins (13:35):
It's that's wild.
Jack Sanker (13:37):
Little greedy by Disney. I'll put
Danessa Watkins (13:39):
that away. That's not a good look.
Jack Sanker (13:40):
Yeah. Well, we'll we'll I I'll be interested to
see. I hope I think we'llprobably get a ruling in the
next couple of months. And ifkeep this on my radar, and I'll
I'll let the audience know whatthe ruling actually is.
Danessa Watkins (13:56):
Alright. Onto wrestling. So on January 25th
this year, 2024, Janelle Grant,who was a former employee of
World Wrestling Entertainment orWWE, she filed a complaint in
Connecticut federal courtagainst WWE, its founder, and ex
(14:17):
CEO, Vince McMahon, and thenanother former executive,
alleging that McMahon pressuredher into having sex with him and
other WWE employees in exchangefor her job. Once employed,
McMahon allegedly also sharedexplicit photos of Grant with
other employees and wrestlersand, quote, re recruited
(14:37):
individuals to have sexualrelations with miss Grant,
unquote, including other WWEemployees. As alleged, McMahon
pressured Grant to sign anondisclosure agreement after he
told her that his wife had foundout about their relationship.
So part of the the federalcomplaint is there there are
(14:58):
accounts where she's asking thatthat NDA, be deemed
nonenforceable. Yeah.Essentially. Now in 2022,
McMahon stepped down from hisposition as CEO while the WWE
was investigating allegations ofhis misconduct. And at that
time, the crux of the claimswere that he had paid hush money
(15:18):
to employees that he had affairswith, to the tune of as much as
potentially $12,000,000.
Now the complaint that Grantfiled is 67 pages long, and it
goes into substantial detailabout the alleged abuse that she
suffered, including violationsof the Victims of Trafficking
and Violence Protection Act,battery, and intentional
(15:40):
infliction of emotional distressor IIED. So to support her
federal lawsuit, Grant soughtdiscovery from doctor Carlin
Kolker and his peak wellnessclinic, alleging that she was
sent there at McMahon'sdirection in November of 2019.
Grant claimed that she receivedtreatments that were not
(16:01):
disclosed to her, includingbeing given pills and IV
infusions. She alleges that theunmarked drugs made her feel
sick, and she was not allowed toaccess her medical records.
Allegedly, McMahon and WWE paidaround $51,000 to Kolkar and
Peak Wellness for these visits.
So Grant believes that hermedical records from doctor
(16:24):
Kolkar could potentially supporta RICO claim. And, according to
her attorney, in response towhat I assume was just a
standard medical recordsrequest, if not a formal
subpoena, doctor Kolkar producedincomplete records refusing to
provide legally requiredinformation, such as the purpose
(16:44):
of her treatments and the actualnames of the drugs that she was
prescribed. So given theincompleteness of that
production, Grant filed adiscovery petition for records
in Connecticut state courtdirectly against doctor Kolkar
and his clinic demanding thatthey produce the missing medical
information. Shockingly, doctorKolker and his clinic responded
(17:08):
by filing a verified complaintfor discovery against miss Grant
alleging that her petition fordiscovery of her medical records
was was a smear campaign relatedto her lawsuit against McMahon
and the WWE. Oh.
Yeah. What? I know. Like,
Jack Sanker (17:23):
who does that? It's still while not providing those
records.
Danessa Watkins (17:26):
Well yeah. Exactly.
Jack Sanker (17:27):
That's such an insane position to take.
Danessa Watkins (17:29):
I know. Okay. So Kolger and Peak Wellness's
complaint said they could sueGrant for defamation, torch
interference with businessrelations, and negligent and
intentional infliction ofemotional distress, claiming
that her public accusationsessentially say that doctor
Kolker, engaged in medicalmalpractice and falsification of
(17:50):
medical records. The complaintby Kolkar and Peak Wellness,
says that Kolkar, quote, is awell respected physician and has
a long professional relationshipwith many well known celebrities
and athletes, includingShaquille O'Neal, Andre Agassi,
Justin Bieber, and numerousother notables. End quote.
Celebrity doctor. Right.
Jack Sanker (18:11):
And those guys never get in trouble.
Danessa Watkins (18:12):
I was just gonna say why after Nassar,
like, why would you ever try tomake that argument? The the
complaint also says Kolkar is aclinical researcher with a
variety of scientificpublications to his credit, and
he has written numerous wellknown health and fitness books.
So, what Kolker is seeking fromGrant are copies of any
(18:37):
communications about him and hisclinic that she may have had
with news outlets, licensingauthorities, and other third
parties. So, essentially, anymaterials that would support a
defamation claim against her,and they're also trying to get
her to sit for a deposition. So,like, super aggressive.
Yeah. An attorney for Grant,Anne e Callas of Holland Law
(19:01):
Firm LLC, told Law 360 in astatement that the federal
court, quote, sided withJanelle, that's Janelle Grant,
and against McMahon inconfirming that she was well
within her right to seek her ownmedical records and data from
doctor Kolkar of peak wellness.So what they did was file a
motion to strike Kolkar'scomplaint for discovery. And her
(19:26):
attorney says, quote, doctorKolkar and Peak Wellness hope to
intimidate miss Grant intodropping her own preaction
discovery petition against themin which she seeks her own
medical records and relateddocumentation. The Kolker bill
of discovery fails to pleadprobable cause for any of the
purported claims he proposes toinvestigate, end quote.
(19:47):
According to Grant, then herpetition for discovery from
Kolkar, only points tostatements in court filings that
would be protected by thelitigation privilege, as well as
statements in media reports,which would be protected by the
fair report privilege. So thatisn't a basis for defamation,
essentially. In Grant's motionto strike, they say, quote,
(20:11):
moreover, plaintiff's purportedclaims constitute an illegal
attempt to chill miss Grant fromspeaking out about her treatment
at the practice and must bedismissed under Connecticut's
anti SLAPP statute as animpermissible infringement in
her exercise of free speechrelated to a matter of public
health and concern, end quote.
Jack Sanker (20:31):
Yeah. I mean, it's just bonkers to me because I
think both at the federal end,at least as far as under state
level, you, like, pretty muchhave an always have a right to
your own medical records.
Danessa Watkins (20:42):
Yeah. Absolutely.
Jack Sanker (20:43):
Right? Like, I I don't have, like, a citation to
throw at the audience on that,but, like, that's just one of
those things where I'm like, asa patient, you can go ask for
your medical records and expectto get them.
Danessa Watkins (20:53):
Yeah.
Jack Sanker (20:54):
And this guy is just like, no. You can't have
them?
Danessa Watkins (20:57):
Yeah. He or he produced some, but not the
things that she actually needed,which is, like, what what was
even the purpose of my treatmentto begin with? And
Jack Sanker (21:05):
What was is there any allegations about in the
complaint about what the purposewas? Like so as I understand it
from your telling, Vince McMahonallegedly sent her to see this
doctor to get mystery infusionsand injections and whatnot. We
don't know what those thingswere.
Danessa Watkins (21:19):
Correct.
Jack Sanker (21:19):
That's weird.
Danessa Watkins (21:21):
Yeah. And I I guess now this doctor is, you
know, trying to say, oh, well,I'm, you know, this big
important guy, and I've done allthis research, and I'm legit.
And so my, I guess, medicaltreatment shouldn't be
questioned. I don't know. It's
Jack Sanker (21:36):
Well, wouldn't be if you would give the records.
Danessa Watkins (21:38):
Right. Exactly.
Jack Sanker (21:39):
I mean making it sound way worse.
Danessa Watkins (21:40):
It's so suspicious. I just I've never
heard of a medical provider notreleasing records to the their
their own client. I mean,they're your yeah. They're your
records. You have the rightthem.
Jack Sanker (21:51):
That's so strange.
Danessa Watkins (21:53):
So I was a little bit curious as to why so
usually when you issue I mean, Idon't you don't even need to do
a subpoena. Like, any patientcan just contact the hospital,
fill out a form, and get theirrecords. But let's just say
that, you know, they went thesubpoena route or whatever they
did to try and get the records.So I was curious as to why they
wouldn't have brought, like, amotion to compel or a motion for
(22:16):
rule to show cause in thefederal lawsuit. I guess at the
time that those incomplete orshortly after those incomplete
records were produced by doctorKolkar, the federal lawsuit, the
court entered a stay, I guess,because a federal prosecutor for
the Southern District of NewYork entered an appearance in
(22:39):
the federal case and filedsealed documents on the court
docket.
So perhaps there's a criminalinvestigation going on
simultaneously? I mean, thatonly makes sense there. So,
essentially, discovery wasstayed at the federal level. But
I think, you know,understandably, probably the
(22:59):
grant team was concerned thatthese records would disappear.
Jack Sanker (23:02):
So Or I mean, it's also one of those things where,
like, did they even exist in thefirst place?
Danessa Watkins (23:07):
Sure. Right.
Jack Sanker (23:07):
Whole, like, mystery infusion injection thing
Mhmm. Is one of those thingsthat that he was paid cash for.
Right?
Danessa Watkins (23:15):
Because there I mean, there's gotta be some sort
of a trail because they'resaying that there's at least
51,000 Right. That was paid.
Jack Sanker (23:22):
But it was paid by either w
Danessa Watkins (23:23):
w e or McMahon.
Jack Sanker (23:24):
McMahon. Yeah. So, like, whatever those things are,
there may not be medical record.Like, that
Danessa Watkins (23:31):
this True. You know
Jack Sanker (23:31):
what I mean? Like, it their name may and
especially, like, for whateverthey are. This is so strange.
Danessa Watkins (23:36):
It's really strange. Yeah. And, I mean, I
have to say that I tend to agreewith Grant's attorneys that what
doctor Kolkar is doing is reallya slap.
Jack Sanker (23:47):
Yeah. It's a slap suit
Danessa Watkins (23:48):
for sure. Yeah. Which we've covered in past
shows.
Jack Sanker (23:51):
Do we wanna tell the audience what a a slap suit
is?
Danessa Watkins (23:53):
Yeah. So it's s l a p p, and it stands for
strategic lawsuits againstpublic participation. So I
believe at this point, 48 statesnow have anti SLAPP laws. We
don't have it at the federallevel, unfortunately, but,
they're intended to preventpeople from using courts or
(24:14):
potential threats of a lawsuitto intimidate people who are
freely exercising their firstamendment rights. So we see this
most frequently with defamationwhere somebody will file a
meritless lawsuit againstanother person for something
that they said, and they'llinclude a prayer for relief
that's just obscene, like,$200,000,000.
And the whole purpose is just tosilence that person from
(24:37):
continuing to engage in whateverspeech they were doing. But
these SLAPP lawsuits, they canalso send a message to others.
You know, be quiet or you'll besued next. So
Jack Sanker (24:47):
State by state and not all states have 1.
Danessa Watkins (24:50):
Yeah. Now the majority do, but they are all
wildly different. Right. So,like, Illinois, unfortunately,
is somewhat limited to, like,you have to be taking some sort
of government action.
Jack Sanker (25:03):
Yeah. I know. Like, Arizona is like that as well and
a couple others. So which whichmeans
Danessa Watkins (25:07):
Florida is actually one of the best ones.
Jack Sanker (25:10):
Oh, okay.
Danessa Watkins (25:10):
Yeah. They there's a lot of protection
there.
Jack Sanker (25:12):
What it means then then is without an a strong anti
SLAPP suit, that means youactually do have to contend with
the allegations in the frivolouslawsuit, and deal with
dismissing it that way, whichis, like, you know, difficult to
do, obviously.
Danessa Watkins (25:27):
Yeah. Yeah. But just I mean, as they were kind
of outlining the all of thealleged defamatory speech that
Grant engaged in, even if it'sfound to be defamatory, is
subject to a privilege. I mean,litigation privilege is, you
know, strong. Yeah.
The fair or poor privilege. So Ithink that's the the basis of
(25:49):
their their motion to strikethat complaint by doctor Kolkar.
And I don't know. I mean, courtsin my experience don't always do
the right thing when it comes toanti slap.
Jack Sanker (26:01):
There's free speech concerns and
Danessa Watkins (26:04):
Yeah. For sure. But it's frustrating because
then why do we even have thesestatutes to begin with? But, I
don't know. This one seemspretty clear, especially where
she's seeking her own records.
You know? She's not seeking therecords of somebody else. So,
yeah, I don't know. It'sinteresting where this this
whole case has a lot of layersto it, and, I think it's
(26:27):
probably making WWE and its newowner TKO Group Holdings
probably nervous about thefuture here.
Jack Sanker (26:37):
Yeah. None of this strikes me as, I don't know.
This I mean, like, speculation,conjecture, whatever, but, like,
the stories of, like, WWE and,like, in its heyday and and kind
of folks that, like, went in andout of there, pretty wild stuff
going on.
Danessa Watkins (26:55):
Mhmm.
Jack Sanker (26:56):
This kind of, like, sex for work arrangement, which
has not been proven, but hasbeen alleged.
Danessa Watkins (27:03):
Right.
Jack Sanker (27:04):
Does seem to fit that bill of other stories that
have been told about, you know,this organization, etcetera.
Danessa Watkins (27:11):
Mhmm.
Jack Sanker (27:13):
Yeah. And then, right, to have a a celebrity
doctor going, no. No. No. I Ihelp out celebs all the time.
You can totally it's, like Yeah.Biggest red flag you can have.
Danessa Watkins (27:25):
Hang on.
Jack Sanker (27:26):
Yeah. So
Danessa Watkins (27:28):
we'll see what happens there. Potentially,
there's gonna be criminalcharges coming out at some point
Jack Sanker (27:34):
from the
Danessa Watkins (27:35):
looks of it. So
Jack Sanker (27:36):
Yeah. This in the Southern District of New York.
Danessa Watkins (27:38):
Well and and crazy for doctor Kolkers'
attorneys to not realize thatand wait to paint a target on
your back.
Jack Sanker (27:47):
What are you doing? I know.
Danessa Watkins (27:49):
What's up with attorneys this show?
Jack Sanker (27:51):
I don't know.
Danessa Watkins (27:51):
I think they're making some questionable choices
in their motions they're filing.
Jack Sanker (27:55):
Listen. I want I want the listeners to know that
Danessa and I have never mademistakes
Danessa Watkins (28:02):
in that Always sound judgment.
Jack Sanker (28:03):
And our our clients have no complaints. But, to my
knowledge, I have not, teed upany one of my complaints for a
federal indictment yet. So, soat least I got that.
Danessa Watkins (28:16):
Yeah. Got that going for you.
Jack Sanker (28:17):
There you go.
Danessa Watkins (28:18):
Goals. Yeah.
Jack Sanker (28:21):
Alright. Thanks everyone for listening. As a
reminder, we put out a new showevery other Tuesday. You could
find us on Apple Podcasts,Spotify, YouTube, wherever you
get your shows, and we will talkto you in 2 weeks.
Welcome to litigation nation. I'm your
host, Danessa Watkins, alongwith my co host, Jack Sanker. As
a reminder, on this show, wediscuss interesting legal topics
and court opinions from acrossthe country. And despite our own
crazy litigation schedules, Jackand I commit to presenting new
content every other week. Soplease subscribe to, like, share
(00:25):
our Litigation Nation episodeswherever you get your podcasts,
Apple, Spotify, YouTube,etcetera.
So what do we have teed up fortoday, Jack?
Jack Sanker (00:35):
Disney is testing the limits of their mandatory
arbitration provisions in theirterms of service. They argue
that in a wrongful death casewhich arises out of one of their
parks should be thrown outbecause the decedent agreed to a
mandatory arbitration when shesigned up for the streaming
service, Disney plus.
Danessa Watkins (00:54):
Interesting. Alright. I'm going to cover a
twist in the rape and sextrafficking case filed by a
former WWE employee against exCEO Vince McMahon. The plaintiff
slash alleged victim is nowbeing threatened with a
defamation lawsuit by thephysician who McMahon allegedly
(01:15):
sent her to for undisclosedtreatment. All that and more,
here's what you need to know.
Jack Sanker (01:24):
So the Disney story, it's I'll start with you
know, it's a tragic story. It'sa wrongful death case, so it's
never going to be exactly, youknow, funny, of course. But this
is a really quirky storyinvolving stretching, I think,
the logic, and some of thebaseline elements of kind of
(01:50):
basic contract law, which we'llsee here. So backing up to what
actually happened in 2023, adoctor from New York, his name
was, Amy Tangshan. Sorry if Ihave, her name wrong.
I did look up how to pronounceit, but I still probably
butchered it. Her and herhusband visited Disney World in
(02:12):
Orlando. They went to an Irishthemed restaurant there, which,
as I understand, wasindependently owned and
operated, but I think did havesome type of relationship. May I
don't know if it's like alicensing thing or whatever with
the Disney World Resort.According to the complaint filed
by her widow or husband, theyboth informed the staff
repeatedly about her, nut anddairy allergies before ordering.
(02:36):
She ordered a vegan fritter,scallops, onion rings, and vegan
shepherd's pie. Afterwards, shebegan suffering a severe
allergic reaction. She haddifficulty breathing. She
collapsed. She wasn't she wasable to self administer, an
EpiPen, but, nonetheless, shedied.
So her husband, sued therestaurant, which, like I said,
(02:58):
I I believe is independentlyowned and operated, and also
Disney Parks for wrongful death.On its website, Disney does warn
that they, do not have separateallergy free kitchens, and they
cannot guarantee a menu item iscompletely free of allergens,
for their for the differentrestaurants that are part of the
resort. So, you know, I thinkthey have some type of liability
(03:20):
defense that's gonna come out ofthat. Nevertheless, the
complaint alleges that the folksat the restaurant were put on
notice multiple times of herallergies and and had basically
said, don't worry. This is fine.
Something along those lines. Soliability, ultimately, you know,
who knows? But here's theinteresting part, and this is
why we're gonna cover it today,is that Disney filed a motion to
(03:43):
dismiss the lawsuit arguing thatpursuant to its terms of use
agreement, which the decedentand her husband were a party to,
all disputes with Disney must behandled through mandatory
arbitration, which is not allthat uncommon except, when did
the claimants here agree tothis? And according to Disney,
it's when they signed up forDisney Plus, which is a
(04:04):
streaming platform, thatcontained the terms of service
service agreement and themandatory arbitration provision.
Danessa Watkins (04:11):
Stop it.
Jack Sanker (04:12):
Yes. So, there's more to it than that, but this
is in the motion to dismiss.They Disney is saying, no. No.
No.
When you subscribe to DisneyPlus, you agreed that any and
all disputes between us will beresolved via mandatory
arbitration, including, I guess,you know, the, any, incidents
(04:34):
where you come to Disney Worldand choke to death. Or or
Danessa Watkins (04:37):
Alright. Well, because aren't usually
arbitration clauses, they'rewithin the the four corners of
that contract. So you wouldthink, like, the contract is for
Disney plus services.
Jack Sanker (04:49):
Yeah.
Danessa Watkins (04:49):
So any claims arising from Disney plus
services, you have to go toarbitration.
Jack Sanker (04:54):
So I'll I'll read the I'll read part of it to you.
This is the Disney plus fromDisney plus, TOS here. Disney
LLC and or its affiliates orsubsidiaries, collectively
Disney, are pleased to provideyou certain websites, software,
applications, content, products,and services in any media format
or channel, now known or hereand after devised, blah blah
(05:18):
blah, which may be brandedDisney, ABC, ESPN, Marvel,
Pixar, Lucasfilm, FX,Searchlight Pictures, 20th
Century Studios, NationalGeographic, or another brand
owned or licensed by Disney.References to Disney products
are also included in any anyelements of Disney products. Any
disputes between you and us,except disputes resolved in
small claims or relating to theownership or enforcement of
(05:41):
intellectual property rights, ofcourse, are subject to a class
action waiver and must beresolved by individual binding
arbitration, and then it directsyou to the, the longer provision
in the agreement in section 8.
You can look this up on theDisney website if you wanna take
a look at it. But it's, yes. Anyany dispute at all except those
(06:02):
which were falling to a smallclaims court or they have to
deal with intellectual property,according to this, for, for
anything you could think of,really, is going to be subject
to the mandatory arbitrationagreement. And that's, yeah,
that's one of the bases for themotion to dismiss. Now it's
worth noting that there isanother TOS here, one that, the
(06:26):
widow or husband would haveagreed to when he purchased the
tickets to Disney World, andthat's, like, to me, makes a
little more sense, you know, tosay, hey.
You're coming to, like, a themepark. Part of that is we're
gonna settle disputes viamandatory arbitration. You have
to check here or whatever. Yeah.And, like, setting aside kind
of, like, whatever opinions youhave on mandatory provisions in
the first place, especially whenthey're, like, rolled into, what
(06:50):
do they call this?
Click click wrap?
Danessa Watkins (06:52):
Yeah.
Jack Sanker (06:52):
Yeah. Like this where it's just a, you know,
check this box to move on typething, and no one in the world
has ever read these.
Danessa Watkins (06:59):
Mhmm.
Jack Sanker (07:01):
So that to me seems a little less stretched, but,
the but the Disney plus one isreal. I mean, that's that's
that's one of the arguments thatthey're making.
Danessa Watkins (07:11):
I can't believe they're making that argument.
Yeah. There's no way that Imean, because if anything,
they're creating bad law forthemselves, I would think.
Jack Sanker (07:19):
Oh my goodness. I mean, so here's what Disney says
in its filing. It says that the,husband agreed to these terms
when he signed up for 1 monthfree trial of its streaming.
Come on. This is, Disney plus in2019.
By the way, this accidenthappened in 2022. Wow. I'm
sorry. 2023. So it's they agreedto it 4 4 years prior to, the
(07:41):
unfortunate death, that occurredhere.
Disney ads that the whateverhusband accepted the terms again
when he used when he used hisDisney account to buy the
tickets from the theme park. AndI actually wasn't quite sure
about that, and I I went to pullthe the motion. I couldn't do it
because I would I would guess,so much traffic to, like, this
local court website that I wastrying to get on that it had
(08:04):
crashed repeatedly, so I I couldnot pull the motion. I'm sorry.
I did wanna read it, but, youknow, I wasn't able to.
But in any event, that's what anumber of outlets that have that
have read in our reporting. Thatlooks like that looks right to
me. And, so yeah. I mean, it'sit's this Disney account is
(08:25):
where this this TOS kind oflives. And, when they when they
use it to do anything,apparently, they are ascending
to this mandatory agreement.
Danessa Watkins (08:34):
And they list all those other companies, which
obviously are under, Disney'sumbrella. But so just thinking
about this. So that couldsigning up for Disney Plus,
having this agreement means youcould go to a ESPN zone, get
injured there, and they couldhold you under this.
Jack Sanker (08:54):
Marvel, Pixar, Lucasfilm, Disney, ABC, FX,
Searchlight Pictures, 20thCentury Studios, National
Geographic, or any other brandowned or licensed by Disney. So
which, like, as always areminder of, like, how much of
the entertainment sphere Disneyowns. I always forget. You know?
Mhmm.
But it's, you know, it's likeeverything. Mhmm. So, yeah,
they're asserting that they arethat, effectively, if you, like,
(09:17):
participate in any media at allin in in 2024, the year of our
lord, that you are subject tomandatory arbitration. I mean,
I'm not licensed in Florida. Ihaven't dug in here, much beyond
this.
The use of these mandatorybinding arbitration agreements
(09:37):
has long been criticized as away that big corporations can
effectively snuff out claimants,the rights to a jury trial at
least, by slipping into thelengthy, click wrap TOS like
this, which, as I mentioned, noone really reads. And, you know,
I on one hand, I kind ofunderstand, like, if you're
buying tickets to a theme parkand then you agree to the kind
(09:58):
of standard, like, holdharmless, you know, waivers of
liability and then etcetera,whether or not you agree with
that, that's not outlandish.But, relying on the Disney plus
thing is just bizarre. And ifand if, like, I'm I don't know
which firm filed this. I'm surethey're they know what they're
doing and they're, you know,just being zealous advocates,
(10:19):
but I wonder if there's, like,some PR guy at at Disney that's
like, hold on.
Our lawyers filed what? Yeah.No. Seriously. Like, hang on a
sec.
You know, it's I mean
Danessa Watkins (10:31):
I mean, as a litigator, you always have a
million arguments you can make.Well, not always, but if you're
lucky. But you never throwspaghetti against the wall.
Like, you pick your best and gowith it.
Jack Sanker (10:41):
Especially if, like, it's it's going to, like
and it was all over, like, kindof the places I go to look for
headlines, you know, to to toread and figure out what we're
gonna cover. This was all ofeverything because it's, like,
such an absurd thing that iftrue I mean, the amount of TOS
that you click through in agiven day for the apps that
(11:05):
you're using, the software thatyou're using on your computer,
and, like, just a million otherthings. I mean, I don't know. It
it this just can't be the casethat this is how it's gonna be
enforced, one way or the other.So we will see, to what extent
the motion is granted or denied.
I'll be very interested to seewhat happens, but, this is also
one of those things where, like,Disney recently I mean, for,
(11:27):
like, a 100 years has been,like, America's entertainment
company in, like, past, like,couple years. Just keeps just
stepping in it, like,politically or, like, legally. I
mean, there was the wholedispute around the land, rights
that Disney had in Florida,which we we covered in a
previous episode. It was, kindof a, a deeply personal feud
(11:52):
between Disney and governor RonDeSantis. And this just seems
like one of those things where,like, hey.
No one likes mandatoryprovisions already, and this is
just gonna draw a lot ofnegative attention to that as a
a body of law, and it's, youknow, gonna hurt Disney maybe in
the long run.
Danessa Watkins (12:12):
Oh, for sure.
Jack Sanker (12:12):
Yeah.
Danessa Watkins (12:13):
Definitely. And what court was this in? This was
in state court in Florida?
Jack Sanker (12:16):
Yes. It was. I don't I don't recall which
county. Like I said, I wastrying to get into it, and then,
you know, the website keptcrashing probably because all
the nosy attorneys like mewanted to sniff around this
filing and and and see if wecould see if I could copy it for
my clients.
Danessa Watkins (12:32):
Yeah. Right. I just hope that they, that the
judge actually writes an opinionon it because, you know, it's an
issue of law. Yeah. So, theycertainly can make an opinion on
it.
And,
Jack Sanker (12:47):
And you you would it stretches some of the
baseline elements, like, in theidea of, like, mutually,
informed consent, meeting of theminds, if you will Mhmm. That
kind of underlies, like,baseline con baseline contract
concepts
Danessa Watkins (13:04):
Mhmm.
Jack Sanker (13:05):
As well as, you know, limited in scope and
foreseeability and just theapplicability here of signing up
for Disney plus and thenrealizing that you've waived
your rights to a wrongful deathlawsuit.
Danessa Watkins (13:19):
Well, even if
Jack Sanker (13:20):
does not follow the other. You know? Right.
Danessa Watkins (13:22):
And even if it happened in the same year
Jack Sanker (13:24):
Yeah.
Danessa Watkins (13:24):
I still think it would be too much. And then
the facts in this case are justso much more egregious that it
happened, what, 4 years apart,and it was a free trial. It's
not like he continued hismembership.
Jack Sanker (13:35):
Yeah. It's so
Danessa Watkins (13:35):
It's that's wild.
Jack Sanker (13:37):
Little greedy by Disney. I'll put
Danessa Watkins (13:39):
that away. That's not a good look.
Jack Sanker (13:40):
Yeah. Well, we'll we'll I I'll be interested to
see. I hope I think we'llprobably get a ruling in the
next couple of months. And ifkeep this on my radar, and I'll
I'll let the audience know whatthe ruling actually is.
Danessa Watkins (13:56):
Alright. Onto wrestling. So on January 25th
this year, 2024, Janelle Grant,who was a former employee of
World Wrestling Entertainment orWWE, she filed a complaint in
Connecticut federal courtagainst WWE, its founder, and ex
(14:17):
CEO, Vince McMahon, and thenanother former executive,
alleging that McMahon pressuredher into having sex with him and
other WWE employees in exchangefor her job. Once employed,
McMahon allegedly also sharedexplicit photos of Grant with
other employees and wrestlersand, quote, re recruited
(14:37):
individuals to have sexualrelations with miss Grant,
unquote, including other WWEemployees. As alleged, McMahon
pressured Grant to sign anondisclosure agreement after he
told her that his wife had foundout about their relationship.
So part of the the federalcomplaint is there there are
(14:58):
accounts where she's asking thatthat NDA, be deemed
nonenforceable. Yeah.Essentially. Now in 2022,
McMahon stepped down from hisposition as CEO while the WWE
was investigating allegations ofhis misconduct. And at that
time, the crux of the claimswere that he had paid hush money
(15:18):
to employees that he had affairswith, to the tune of as much as
potentially $12,000,000.
Now the complaint that Grantfiled is 67 pages long, and it
goes into substantial detailabout the alleged abuse that she
suffered, including violationsof the Victims of Trafficking
and Violence Protection Act,battery, and intentional
(15:40):
infliction of emotional distressor IIED. So to support her
federal lawsuit, Grant soughtdiscovery from doctor Carlin
Kolker and his peak wellnessclinic, alleging that she was
sent there at McMahon'sdirection in November of 2019.
Grant claimed that she receivedtreatments that were not
(16:01):
disclosed to her, includingbeing given pills and IV
infusions. She alleges that theunmarked drugs made her feel
sick, and she was not allowed toaccess her medical records.
Allegedly, McMahon and WWE paidaround $51,000 to Kolkar and
Peak Wellness for these visits.
So Grant believes that hermedical records from doctor
(16:24):
Kolkar could potentially supporta RICO claim. And, according to
her attorney, in response towhat I assume was just a
standard medical recordsrequest, if not a formal
subpoena, doctor Kolkar producedincomplete records refusing to
provide legally requiredinformation, such as the purpose
(16:44):
of her treatments and the actualnames of the drugs that she was
prescribed. So given theincompleteness of that
production, Grant filed adiscovery petition for records
in Connecticut state courtdirectly against doctor Kolkar
and his clinic demanding thatthey produce the missing medical
information. Shockingly, doctorKolker and his clinic responded
(17:08):
by filing a verified complaintfor discovery against miss Grant
alleging that her petition fordiscovery of her medical records
was was a smear campaign relatedto her lawsuit against McMahon
and the WWE. Oh.
Yeah. What? I know. Like,
Jack Sanker (17:23):
who does that? It's still while not providing those
records.
Danessa Watkins (17:26):
Well yeah. Exactly.
Jack Sanker (17:27):
That's such an insane position to take.
Danessa Watkins (17:29):
I know. Okay. So Kolger and Peak Wellness's
complaint said they could sueGrant for defamation, torch
interference with businessrelations, and negligent and
intentional infliction ofemotional distress, claiming
that her public accusationsessentially say that doctor
Kolker, engaged in medicalmalpractice and falsification of
(17:50):
medical records. The complaintby Kolkar and Peak Wellness,
says that Kolkar, quote, is awell respected physician and has
a long professional relationshipwith many well known celebrities
and athletes, includingShaquille O'Neal, Andre Agassi,
Justin Bieber, and numerousother notables. End quote.
Celebrity doctor. Right.
Jack Sanker (18:11):
And those guys never get in trouble.
Danessa Watkins (18:12):
I was just gonna say why after Nassar,
like, why would you ever try tomake that argument? The the
complaint also says Kolkar is aclinical researcher with a
variety of scientificpublications to his credit, and
he has written numerous wellknown health and fitness books.
So, what Kolker is seeking fromGrant are copies of any
(18:37):
communications about him and hisclinic that she may have had
with news outlets, licensingauthorities, and other third
parties. So, essentially, anymaterials that would support a
defamation claim against her,and they're also trying to get
her to sit for a deposition. So,like, super aggressive.
Yeah. An attorney for Grant,Anne e Callas of Holland Law
(19:01):
Firm LLC, told Law 360 in astatement that the federal
court, quote, sided withJanelle, that's Janelle Grant,
and against McMahon inconfirming that she was well
within her right to seek her ownmedical records and data from
doctor Kolkar of peak wellness.So what they did was file a
motion to strike Kolkar'scomplaint for discovery. And her
(19:26):
attorney says, quote, doctorKolkar and Peak Wellness hope to
intimidate miss Grant intodropping her own preaction
discovery petition against themin which she seeks her own
medical records and relateddocumentation. The Kolker bill
of discovery fails to pleadprobable cause for any of the
purported claims he proposes toinvestigate, end quote.
(19:47):
According to Grant, then herpetition for discovery from
Kolkar, only points tostatements in court filings that
would be protected by thelitigation privilege, as well as
statements in media reports,which would be protected by the
fair report privilege. So thatisn't a basis for defamation,
essentially. In Grant's motionto strike, they say, quote,
(20:11):
moreover, plaintiff's purportedclaims constitute an illegal
attempt to chill miss Grant fromspeaking out about her treatment
at the practice and must bedismissed under Connecticut's
anti SLAPP statute as animpermissible infringement in
her exercise of free speechrelated to a matter of public
health and concern, end quote.
Jack Sanker (20:31):
Yeah. I mean, it's just bonkers to me because I
think both at the federal end,at least as far as under state
level, you, like, pretty muchhave an always have a right to
your own medical records.
Danessa Watkins (20:42):
Yeah. Absolutely.
Jack Sanker (20:43):
Right? Like, I I don't have, like, a citation to
throw at the audience on that,but, like, that's just one of
those things where I'm like, asa patient, you can go ask for
your medical records and expectto get them.
Danessa Watkins (20:53):
Yeah.
Jack Sanker (20:54):
And this guy is just like, no. You can't have
them?
Danessa Watkins (20:57):
Yeah. He or he produced some, but not the
things that she actually needed,which is, like, what what was
even the purpose of my treatmentto begin with? And
Jack Sanker (21:05):
What was is there any allegations about in the
complaint about what the purposewas? Like so as I understand it
from your telling, Vince McMahonallegedly sent her to see this
doctor to get mystery infusionsand injections and whatnot. We
don't know what those thingswere.
Danessa Watkins (21:19):
Correct.
Jack Sanker (21:19):
That's weird.
Danessa Watkins (21:21):
Yeah. And I I guess now this doctor is, you
know, trying to say, oh, well,I'm, you know, this big
important guy, and I've done allthis research, and I'm legit.
And so my, I guess, medicaltreatment shouldn't be
questioned. I don't know. It's
Jack Sanker (21:36):
Well, wouldn't be if you would give the records.
Danessa Watkins (21:38):
Right. Exactly.
Jack Sanker (21:39):
I mean making it sound way worse.
Danessa Watkins (21:40):
It's so suspicious. I just I've never
heard of a medical provider notreleasing records to the their
their own client. I mean,they're your yeah. They're your
records. You have the rightthem.
Jack Sanker (21:51):
That's so strange.
Danessa Watkins (21:53):
So I was a little bit curious as to why so
usually when you issue I mean, Idon't you don't even need to do
a subpoena. Like, any patientcan just contact the hospital,
fill out a form, and get theirrecords. But let's just say
that, you know, they went thesubpoena route or whatever they
did to try and get the records.So I was curious as to why they
wouldn't have brought, like, amotion to compel or a motion for
(22:16):
rule to show cause in thefederal lawsuit. I guess at the
time that those incomplete orshortly after those incomplete
records were produced by doctorKolkar, the federal lawsuit, the
court entered a stay, I guess,because a federal prosecutor for
the Southern District of NewYork entered an appearance in
(22:39):
the federal case and filedsealed documents on the court
docket.
So perhaps there's a criminalinvestigation going on
simultaneously? I mean, thatonly makes sense there. So,
essentially, discovery wasstayed at the federal level. But
I think, you know,understandably, probably the
(22:59):
grant team was concerned thatthese records would disappear.
Jack Sanker (23:02):
So Or I mean, it's also one of those things where,
like, did they even exist in thefirst place?
Danessa Watkins (23:07):
Sure. Right.
Jack Sanker (23:07):
Whole, like, mystery infusion injection thing
Mhmm. Is one of those thingsthat that he was paid cash for.
Right?
Danessa Watkins (23:15):
Because there I mean, there's gotta be some sort
of a trail because they'resaying that there's at least
51,000 Right. That was paid.
Jack Sanker (23:22):
But it was paid by either w
Danessa Watkins (23:23):
w e or McMahon.
Jack Sanker (23:24):
McMahon. Yeah. So, like, whatever those things are,
there may not be medical record.Like, that
Danessa Watkins (23:31):
this True. You know
Jack Sanker (23:31):
what I mean? Like, it their name may and
especially, like, for whateverthey are. This is so strange.
Danessa Watkins (23:36):
It's really strange. Yeah. And, I mean, I
have to say that I tend to agreewith Grant's attorneys that what
doctor Kolkar is doing is reallya slap.
Jack Sanker (23:47):
Yeah. It's a slap suit
Danessa Watkins (23:48):
for sure. Yeah. Which we've covered in past
shows.
Jack Sanker (23:51):
Do we wanna tell the audience what a a slap suit
is?
Danessa Watkins (23:53):
Yeah. So it's s l a p p, and it stands for
strategic lawsuits againstpublic participation. So I
believe at this point, 48 statesnow have anti SLAPP laws. We
don't have it at the federallevel, unfortunately, but,
they're intended to preventpeople from using courts or
(24:14):
potential threats of a lawsuitto intimidate people who are
freely exercising their firstamendment rights. So we see this
most frequently with defamationwhere somebody will file a
meritless lawsuit againstanother person for something
that they said, and they'llinclude a prayer for relief
that's just obscene, like,$200,000,000.
And the whole purpose is just tosilence that person from
(24:37):
continuing to engage in whateverspeech they were doing. But
these SLAPP lawsuits, they canalso send a message to others.
You know, be quiet or you'll besued next. So
Jack Sanker (24:47):
State by state and not all states have 1.
Danessa Watkins (24:50):
Yeah. Now the majority do, but they are all
wildly different. Right. So,like, Illinois, unfortunately,
is somewhat limited to, like,you have to be taking some sort
of government action.
Jack Sanker (25:03):
Yeah. I know. Like, Arizona is like that as well and
a couple others. So which whichmeans
Danessa Watkins (25:07):
Florida is actually one of the best ones.
Jack Sanker (25:10):
Oh, okay.
Danessa Watkins (25:10):
Yeah. They there's a lot of protection
there.
Jack Sanker (25:12):
What it means then then is without an a strong anti
SLAPP suit, that means youactually do have to contend with
the allegations in the frivolouslawsuit, and deal with
dismissing it that way, whichis, like, you know, difficult to
do, obviously.
Danessa Watkins (25:27):
Yeah. Yeah. But just I mean, as they were kind
of outlining the all of thealleged defamatory speech that
Grant engaged in, even if it'sfound to be defamatory, is
subject to a privilege. I mean,litigation privilege is, you
know, strong. Yeah.
The fair or poor privilege. So Ithink that's the the basis of
(25:49):
their their motion to strikethat complaint by doctor Kolkar.
And I don't know. I mean, courtsin my experience don't always do
the right thing when it comes toanti slap.
Jack Sanker (26:01):
There's free speech concerns and
Danessa Watkins (26:04):
Yeah. For sure. But it's frustrating because
then why do we even have thesestatutes to begin with? But, I
don't know. This one seemspretty clear, especially where
she's seeking her own records.
You know? She's not seeking therecords of somebody else. So,
yeah, I don't know. It'sinteresting where this this
whole case has a lot of layersto it, and, I think it's
(26:27):
probably making WWE and its newowner TKO Group Holdings
probably nervous about thefuture here.
Jack Sanker (26:37):
Yeah. None of this strikes me as, I don't know.
This I mean, like, speculation,conjecture, whatever, but, like,
the stories of, like, WWE and,like, in its heyday and and kind
of folks that, like, went in andout of there, pretty wild stuff
going on.
Danessa Watkins (26:55):
Mhmm.
Jack Sanker (26:56):
This kind of, like, sex for work arrangement, which
has not been proven, but hasbeen alleged.
Danessa Watkins (27:03):
Right.
Jack Sanker (27:04):
Does seem to fit that bill of other stories that
have been told about, you know,this organization, etcetera.
Danessa Watkins (27:11):
Mhmm.
Jack Sanker (27:13):
Yeah. And then, right, to have a a celebrity
doctor going, no. No. No. I Ihelp out celebs all the time.
You can totally it's, like Yeah.Biggest red flag you can have.
Danessa Watkins (27:25):
Hang on.
Jack Sanker (27:26):
Yeah. So
Danessa Watkins (27:28):
we'll see what happens there. Potentially,
there's gonna be criminalcharges coming out at some point
Jack Sanker (27:34):
from the
Danessa Watkins (27:35):
looks of it. So
Jack Sanker (27:36):
Yeah. This in the Southern District of New York.
Danessa Watkins (27:38):
Well and and crazy for doctor Kolkers'
attorneys to not realize thatand wait to paint a target on
your back.
Jack Sanker (27:47):
What are you doing? I know.
Danessa Watkins (27:49):
What's up with attorneys this show?
Jack Sanker (27:51):
I don't know.
Danessa Watkins (27:51):
I think they're making some questionable choices
in their motions they're filing.
Jack Sanker (27:55):
Listen. I want I want the listeners to know that
Danessa and I have never mademistakes
Danessa Watkins (28:02):
in that Always sound judgment.
Jack Sanker (28:03):
And our our clients have no complaints. But, to my
knowledge, I have not, teed upany one of my complaints for a
federal indictment yet. So, soat least I got that.
Danessa Watkins (28:16):
Yeah. Got that going for you.
Jack Sanker (28:17):
There you go.
Danessa Watkins (28:18):
Goals. Yeah.
Jack Sanker (28:21):
Alright. Thanks everyone for listening. As a
reminder, we put out a new showevery other Tuesday. You could
find us on Apple Podcasts,Spotify, YouTube, wherever you
get your shows, and we will talkto you in 2 weeks.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.