For now, the WWE concussion lawsuit continues to center around the matter of whether or not Christopher Nowinski can be deposed by the plaintiffs, with WWE sides arguing back against yet again in court filings this past week and Nowinski’s lawyer joining in.That said, the most newsworthy part of the story comes from a literal footnote in WWE’s pleading, which refers to an affidavit attached to the filing.
The latest battleground in the WWE concussion litigation is whether or not Christopher Nowinski can be compelled to testify. Issues cited in a WWE opposition to the plaintiffs’ effort include:
If you thought Evan Singleton’s deposition went badly for the plaintiffs in the WWE concussion lawsuit, then that appears to be nothing compared to what happened a week later during Vito LoGrasso’s deposition on May 18th. Given the back and forth over LoGrasso claiming that head injuries caused partial deafness when, in the past, he had spoken of having a hearing impairment since birth, the deposition promised to be interesting. It over-delivered.
In the WWE concussion lawsuits, the two sides are battling over discovery issues, namely with regards to depositions. Plaintiff Evan Singleton was deposed last week, and co-plaintiff Vito LoGrasso will be this week, but WWE took issue with:
The back and forth in the WWE concussion litigation continued this past week, stemming from Jerry McDevitt filing a motion on behalf of WWE to compel proper discovery responses from the plaintiffs, Vito Lograsso and Evan Singleton. In the latest motion, WWE is looking to get the plaintiffs to
The “concussion lawsuits” between the clients of Konstantine Kyros and WWE kept rolling along the last few weeks.
Two weeks ago, Jerry McDevitt filed two lengthy motions on WWE’s behalf, Those are motion to dismiss in the Russ McCullough/Ryan Sakoda/Matt “Luther Reigns” Wiese lawsuit (McCullough v. WWE) and an opposition to Kyros’ motion to dismiss WWE’s preemptive lawsuit against Robert “Blackjack Mulligan” Wyndham, James “Koko” Ware, Oreal “Ivan Koloff” Perras, and Thomas “Dynamite Kid” Billington (WWE v. Windham). The Windham motion starts with an eight page introduction that, among other things, a reference to Billy Jack Haynes, the plaintiff in a related case, having “posted various illiterate rants on social media identifying those allegedly joining the lawsuit.” McDevitt adds that “in other illiterate posts, Haynes admits that he was a drug addict for the last 27 years and speaks of his lawsuit as his ’cause to have a union in the pro wrestling industry, vacation, time off injured, a 5 day/night work week, buy[ing] stock in company…” Both Haynes and Windham have routinely posted about the cases and solicited co-plaintiffs on Facebook, and an exhibit to the motion suggests he’s done even more in private.
Current Subscribers Click Here to Continue Reading.