The plaintiffs suing WWE, TKO, Vince McMahon, and U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon filed a motion last week to continue using “John Doe” pseudonyms. The plaintiffs, who allege they were sexually abused as minors due to the defendants’ negligence, say the defendants have refused to agree to their continued anonymity.
The defendants, who deny they were negligent, have already been informed of the identities of the former ring boy plaintiffs, but their names are not known to the public.
The plaintiffs alleged in their 110-page complaint that they were abused when they were teens throughout the 1980s and beyond, primarily by former WWF ring announcer Mel Phillips, who died in 2012. They say the McMahons and the company knew or should have known Phillips was a danger to the boys he recruited to help set up wrestling rings at WWF events. One plaintiff also alleges he was abused by former WWE executive Pat Patterson (legal name, Pierre Clermont), who is also deceased.
Attorneys for ring boy plaintiffs say their identities should be protected to prevent re-traumatization
In their motion, the plaintiffs asked U.S. District Judge James K. Bredar to keep their names out of public filings and maintain a protective order limiting how identifying information may be shared during the case.
The plaintiffs say Vince and Linda McMahon each expressly oppose their continued anonymity, while WWE and TKO “take no position.”
The defendants did not respond to requests for comment from POST Wrestling, including questions about whether the plaintiffs’ characterization of their positions is accurate and the reasoning behind their positions.
“Despite already knowing the identities of the Plaintiffs, none of the Defendants agreed to permit the traumatized men to proceed anonymously,” the plaintiffs’ counsel wrote in the motion.
Earlier in the case, the judge allowed the plaintiffs to proceed anonymously and said he would revisit that after ruling on the motions to dismiss. After he allowed seven of the eight former ring boys’ claims to move forward, he instructed the parties to meet and attempt to reach an agreement on whether the plaintiffs may continue using pseudonyms.
The plaintiffs say attorneys for the parties met on December 18 but did not resolve the issue.
The ring boys’ counsel wrote: “Defendants Vincent K. McMahon and Linda McMahon now oppose Plaintiffs’ desire to continue proceeding under pseudonyms, necessitating this motion. Defendants World Wrestling Entertainment, LLC (‘WWE’) and TKO Group Holdings, Inc. (‘TKO’) informed Plaintiffs that they take no position at this time.”
Under court rules, the defendants may file an opposition or response by about January 26, with the plaintiffs’ reply due two weeks later. The judge would decide the anonymity issue after that.
Courts sometimes allow sexual-abuse plaintiffs, including adults claiming abuse they say happened when they were minors, to proceed under “John Doe” pseudonyms, but it requires the judge’s approval after weighing privacy and safety concerns against fairness and the public interest in transparency.
Attorneys for the former ring boys say “there is a significant risk of subjecting Plaintiffs to re-traumatization if they are forced to publicly reveal their identities, making them permanently available on the Internet.”
“That is especially true in a case like this that has generated significant media coverage, along with discussion amongst the wrestling community,” the motion continues. “The psychological harm caused by widespread disclosure should weigh strongly in favor of granting Plaintiffs’ motion.”
While the defendants have not commented on their positions, they might argue — if they oppose the motion as the plaintiffs claim the McMahons do — that continued use of pseudonyms will hinder their ability to conduct discovery. Discovery is the phase that the parties will soon enter, in which they’ll collect evidence and depositions from opposing parties and witnesses. The defendants might contend that keeping the plaintiffs’ names out of the public record could prevent potential witnesses who support the defendants’ case from coming forward.
What the defendants’ new Answer filings say and don’t say
In the Answer filings submitted on Friday, all the defendants denied liability and wrongdoing.
Both McMahons deny knowing about Phillips’ alleged interest in boys before firing him in 1988, then rehiring him weeks later with instructions to “steer clear” of kids — claims attributed to statements Vince McMahon allegedly made to New York Post columnist Phil Mushnick, which the writer testified to in a deposition in 1993.
The defendants’ Answers largely align in denying the lawsuit’s main allegations and disputing the plaintiffs’ narrative about what the company’s leadership knew and allowed. WWE’s Answer specifically denies the allegations that WWE “knew about, tolerated,” and approved what the plaintiffs describe as a “culture of sexual misconduct” that “permeated” the organization. While denying negligence they’re being sued over, the defendants don’t make affirmative claims that Phillips did not abuse the plaintiffs. Phillips is deceased and not a party to the lawsuit, so the Answers mostly deny liability and, in places, say they lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny specific abuse allegations.
Answer filings rarely produce dramatic new revelations. They respond to the complaint paragraph by paragraph, here across 393 paragraphs, admitting some allegations (often narrowly), denying others, or asserting insufficient knowledge to respond.
The formal responses were required at this juncture after the judge last month largely denied the defendants’ effort to have the case dismissed early.
Linda McMahon’s Answer also states she was unaware until 1992 that minors worked on Phillips’ ring crew.
Both McMahons also deny the plaintiffs’ claims that they “never denied” awareness of Phillips’ purported interest in boys.
The McMahons and WWE predecessor entity Titan Sports sued Mushnick and the New York Post for defamation in 1993 for what Vince’s Answer says were “defamatory and false” statements by the columnist who wrote about the ring boy scandal in the early 1990s.
All the defendants also deny that Phillips was paid $840,000 upon separation from the WWF in 1992. Linda’s Answer specifically denies “any payments” to Phillips. The denial is counter to a detail raised publicly by Gerard Millette — a former WWF ring boy who defends Phillips and disbelieves the former ring announcer abused the plaintiffs — who has recounted that Phillips got a severance payment “north of $800,000.”
The lawsuit also references a 1999 lawsuit brought by former ring boy Scott Hopkins against Titan Sports and Phillips, in which Hopkins alleges he was abused by Phillips. Like many of the paragraphs, the defendants refer the court to the original materials without taking a specific position; however, Linda’s Answer asserts that she has no memory of the lawsuit, which reportedly resulted in a settlement between the plaintiff and the WWF.
Linda also makes a few specific confirmations that are notable because they’re related to aspects of the ring boy scandal historically reported in the early 1990s. She admits a meeting occurred involving former ring boy Tom Cole, along with Vince and longtime WWE attorney Jerry McDevitt. Linda, however, denies the plaintiffs’ characterization of what was said and done. She also admits she offered Cole help with education and future employment, and admits she fired Cole after about a year for not meeting a condition of employment that he attend school and work toward a degree.
Cole was among the first to bring the ring boy scandal to the public, alleging that WWE executive Terry Garvin (legal name, Terry Joyal), along with Phillips and Patterson, sexually harassed him when he worked on the ring crew since he was a teen. Cole said Garvin fired him in 1990 for refusing sexual advances. Cole died by suicide in 2021.
In Judge Bredar’s December ruling, he decided that seven of the eight plaintiffs’ alleged negligence claims were sufficient to proceed to discovery against Vince McMahon and WWE. The ruling addressed only whether the claims were argued well enough to move forward, not whether the allegations are true. The judge also found that only two of those seven plaintiffs plausibly alleged viable claims against Linda McMahon. One plaintiff, whose claims dated to the 1970s — the earliest of all — was dismissed entirely. The court reasoned that the defendants could not have had the prior knowledge of abuse required to establish negligence for that plaintiff’s abuse claims.
