Janel Grant’s attorneys say metadata from Dr. Carlon Colker’s electronic medical records system shows he accessed her file on July 27, 2023, more than a year after her treatment ended, and ten days after federal agents executed a search warrant and served a grand jury subpoena on Vince McMahon. A WWE filing with the SEC at the time disclosed the search and its date.
Grant’s new legal motion asks the court to order Colker to provide more evidence and ties the access date to the timeline of the federal investigation involving McMahon. WWE noted in the securities filing two years ago that “[o]n July 17, 2023, federal law enforcement agents executed a search warrant and served a federal grand jury subpoena on Mr. McMahon.” Federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York have not filed any related criminal charges. In her separate federal civil suit, Grant alleges McMahon subjected her to sexual abuse and sex trafficking, allegations he denies.
Grant is seeking evidence from Colker through a limited type of litigation, called a Bill of Discovery, to determine whether to bring a lawsuit against the doctor and his clinic, including possible claims of conspiracy and aiding and abetting the sex trafficking and abuse she accuses McMahon of.
Grant, a former WWE employee, says she began treatment at Colker’s Peak Wellness in Greenwich, Conn., at McMahon’s insistence. She alleges that while at the clinic, she was given IV infusions and supplement pills that were never identified to her. Colker denies those allegations and has sued one of Grant’s attorneys for defamation over related claims.
The timing of Colker accessing her medical file on July 27, 2023, if accurate, raises questions about why Colker reviewed her file at that point.
Since Grant raised the issue on Friday, Colker’s legal team has not responded. POST Wrestling asked attorneys for Colker and Peak Wellness whether he accessed Grant’s file on July 27, 2023, and whether that access was connected to the federal investigation involving McMahon. They did not reply.
Colker’s attorneys filed their own brief Friday, just ahead of Grant’s, arguing that the standard discovery rules Grant cites don’t apply because the case is a pre-suit discovery petition governed by narrower procedural limits.
“[Grant] may be unable to accept the fact that the defendants do not possess all of the information that she was hoping for,” the doctor’s attorneys stated in the filing submitted Friday, “but that is because they did not engage in the nefarious conduct that she was hoping to unearth.”
At an October 27 remote hearing, Colker’s attorney Frank Silvestri told the court, “It’s our view that this case is over, that there is nothing left to be done.”
But Grant’s attorneys say Colker’s response is part of a broader effort to delay compliance with court orders requiring him to turn over records.
“To date, Dr. Carlon Colker and Peak Wellness have engaged in persistent stalling tactics that have only prolonged this deeply painful process for Ms. Grant,” her representatives said in a statement, “and we have respectfully asked the court to intervene and compel compliance with our Bill of Discovery request once and for all.”
The dispute between the former WWE paralegal and the doctor linked to McMahon began more than a year ago. In May, a judge denied Colker’s motion to dismiss, allowing Grant’s pursuit of evidence to move forward. Colker maintains he provided Grant with her medical records several times, but she says those records were incomplete and contained inconsistencies.
Grant later sought a broad range of evidence, including depositions, communications records, and travel documentation that might show trips Colker and McMahon took together.
At a hearing in August, the court granted Grant’s document requests but denied her request to depose Colker — to question him under oath.
The court also ordered both sides to meet and confer in good faith to resolve any record disputes before returning to court. Since then, progress between the parties has been minimal.
In September, Colker’s attorneys sent what they said were the records the court had ordered them to produce. Grant’s lawyers said the production was missing important information, including billing and payment details, and that Colker’s side failed to explain what steps, if any, were taken to find additional records.
On October 9, Grant’s attorneys told Colker that the materials produced were far from sufficient. The next day, his attorney sent one additional item: a screenshot of a text exchange between Grant and Colker in which he recommended an attorney for her. That attorney later advised Grant during negotiations for the nondisclosure agreement she signed with McMahon in January 2022, a key document in her federal case.
In the weeks that followed, Grant’s team continued pressing for more records. They met with Colker’s attorneys in a video conference on October 22, but said afterward they still lacked a clear answer on whether the clinic had actually searched for all requested materials.
At an October 27 remote hearing, Silvestri told the judge he believed the case was over and that normal discovery rules didn’t apply. Judge David Bothwell responded that the court still retained limited authority to enforce its prior orders: “When a judge makes a decision, the court still has the power to ensure the parties comply. So if there are issues… the court has limited jurisdiction to make sure its order is carried out.”
After the hearing, Grant’s lawyers emailed Colker’s attorneys to ask whether he intended to comply with the judge’s direction. According to an email exhibit filed by Grant’s side, Silvestri replied, “As stated in court, this matter is over.”
Colker’s attorneys say he has no text messages with McMahon and that Grant is demanding records that do not exist. They also say any requested security footage of McMahon visiting the clinic between March 2019 and May 2022 no longer exists because the system automatically deletes recordings every three months.
“Refusing to accept reality, the plaintiff [Grant] seeks additional time to devise yet additional document demands, for yet a further attempted ransacking of the defendants’ documents,” Colker’s lawyers wrote Friday. “It is time to stop. This proceeding should be over and done with.”
Exhibits show that Colker’s legal team recently provided Grant’s attorneys with metadata files related to her medical records. Grant’s team says they still have not received complete payment records. Grant maintains she never paid for her own treatment, that McMahon did, and that Colker’s side has agreed to “stipulate” as much. But her attorneys want documentation clarifying how the payments were made, specifically, whether McMahon paid personally or through a WWE account.
Grant’s Friday motion asks the judge to compel compliance and to order Colker to answer questions under oath about what records exist and what searches were conducted to find them.
In their Friday brief, Colker’s attorneys reiterated that Grant’s discovery requests are improper and overbroad, arguing she is using the state action to gather evidence for her federal lawsuit against WWE and McMahon.
Grant’s counsel responded to that in their brief, writing: “That may be so. [Colker and the clinic] are in a position to know, as they have exclusive possession of these documents and have spent years fighting against producing them, now in defiance of a Court Order.”
Grant says she is seeking discovery in part to investigate potential claims of “civil conspiracy, aiding and abetting, fraud, assault, battery, RICO, RICO conspiracy, and/or breach of fiduciary duty” against Colker and Peak Wellness.
Since July, Grant’s federal lawsuit against WWE and McMahon has been awaiting a judge’s decision on whether to allow limited discovery into whether the nondisclosure agreement’s arbitration clause can be enforced.
Separately, Colker filed a federal defamation lawsuit against one of Grant’s attorneys, Ann Callis, over statements she made about his treatment of Grant, which he alleges were false and damaging.
