WWE Using Ruthless Legal Tactic To Combat Antitrust Lawsuit

WWE has a lot of savvy business moves up their sleeves. They also have some brilliant legal minds working for them to ensure that things go their way in a court of law.

Major League Wrestling continues to claim that WWE holds a monopoly on the professional wrestling industry. The company sued WWE for antitrust violations in 2022, citing unfair business practices. WWE is now using ruthless legal tactics to combat the antitrust lawsuit.

According to Wrestling Observer Newsletter, WWE has recently filed a motion against MLW. WWE claimed that MLW’s discovery requests were excessive and that much of it had nothing to do with the anti-trust lawsuit that was filed. The filing on 5th January in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California aimed to prevent MLW from receiving papers relating to the discovery process that MLW’s attorneys had requested.

In the petition, WWE argued that the 47 Requests for Production (RFPs) are “broad,” “costly” and “improper.” They reiterated that MLW is requesting information that is not relevant to the lawsuit. Some of this could be a delay strategy since the notion is that WWE has the money to block this, and the longer it goes on, the more legal fees the people launching the claim will have to pay.

WWE has filed a motion claiming that MLW’s requests for discovery were too far reaching and much of it they believe has nothing to do with the anti-trust lawsuit that was filed. The filing on 1/5 in U.S. District Court in Northern California (San Jose) was to keep MLW from getting materials related to the discovery process that MLW’s attorneys had requested. In the filing, WWE claims the 47 Requests for Production (RFPs) areྭ”broad” and “costly” and “improper,” alleging MLW is asking for information that is out of scope with the case.

“It is clear from MLW’s actions that it hopes to force its competitor to spend millions of dollars in responding to discovery (in a case that may be dismissed), all while accessing WWE’s most sensitive, competitive information. For these reasons, a protective order should issue.” The filing also said “The RFPs total 47 and almost all of them are overbroad, burdensome, and improper requests for information. Indeed, it appears that MLW is utilizing the RFPs to improperly obtain highly sensitive, competitive information far outside the scope of the Complaint’s allegations and with no clear connection to MLW at all.”

Some of this could be a delay tactic because the belief is that WWE has the money to stall this out and the longer it goes, people filing the suit would continue to incur legal costs. As we’ve seen with the antitrust lawsuit against UFC filed by Cung Le, that has seemingly been stalled forever and has no end in sight after being filed more than eight years ago. The case is scheduled for another hearing. From those close to the proceedings, Jerry McDevitt has not been as active in the case of late although his firm, K&L Gates, is still representing WWE in the case.

The next hearing in the case is scheduled for this May, but a ruling in favor of WWE could change that. MLW requested all documents related to WWE’s efforts to “source, locate or hire” wrestlers, contracts with exclusivity provisions, all performance evaluations, and disciplinary records for all wrestlers, contractors and employees; all documents concerning terminations or resignations for wrestlers from January 1, 2020, through the present; All documents related to the outreach, soliciting or hiring of wrestlers; All documents related to WWE’s efforts to prevent competitors from booking arenas or venues; All actual or threatened lawsuits, claims or complaints made by any third party related to “tortuous interference” from January 1, 2012, through the present (which would relate to legal issues in the past with ROH and Sinclair); and all actual or threatened lawsuits, claims or complaints made by any third party as related to any employees in connection with either employment or contractor agreements.

WWE further claimed that the Court should approve their request because it is unclear if they have jurisdiction over the action, and that discovery should be halted until that is determined. For the time being, a hearing on the matter has been set for May, so we will have to wait and see how the case progresses. We will keep you posted on the progress of this case.

What do you think of this story? Share your thoughts in the comments!