Judge Sarah F. Russell ruled on Friday that Dr. Carlon Colker’s defamation case against Janel Grant’s attorney Ann Callis will continue. Russell’s order denied Callis’s motion to have the case dismissed at this early stage.
Russell, who is also presiding over Grant’s lawsuit against WWE and Vince McMahon, was unconvinced by arguments from the Callis side that Colker is a public figure. The defendants’ motion to dismiss the case at this phase largely hinged on their argument that the doctor, and his clinic by association, were public figures. Individuals and entities that courts determine are public figures generally face a higher burden of proof in defamation cases. They need to show the defendant acted with “actual malice,” meaning the defendant knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for its truth or falsity. Private figures, on the other hand, generally only need to show that the defendant made a false and damaging statement.
The doctor and his clinic Peak Wellness are suing Callis and the law office at which she is a partner, Holland Law, over comments Callis made on a press call and in a press release in October 2024, alleging that Colker “violated ethical and medical standards when he injected unknown substances into Janel’s body and directed her to take unlabeled pills while dismissing her basic questions about those drugs,” among other claims about Colker’s treatment of Grant. Colker vehemently denied the allegations.
Grant is the former WWE employee suing McMahon and WWE in the same federal court in Connecticut, alleging she was sex trafficked and sexually assaulted by McMahon, who has denied the allegations. The case has been ongoing since January 2024.
According to Grant, she was directed to seek treatment at Colker’s clinic by McMahon, who was also a patient at the medical facility.
The statements at issue by Callis stemmed from a Bill of Discovery dispute in a separate case in the Connecticut Superior Court. Grant sought a court order in that case to compel Colker to produce her medical records from the clinic, as well as other evidence. That case is still active.
Attorneys for Grant, including Callis, made allegations similar to Callis’s press statements. However, allegations made on Grant’s behalf in her Bill of Discovery case against Colker are shielded from defamation liability by litigation privilege, which generally insulates lawyers and their clients from defamation claims made in judicial proceedings. Callis’s public statements made to the press, outside of a strictly legal setting, don’t benefit from the same protection.
Russell also determined that Colker is neither a general-purpose public figure nor a limited-purpose public figure. While general-purpose public figures are relatively rare, limited-purpose public figures are more common. The defendants pointed to Colker’s many published books, articles, and public appearances, in support of the notion that he is — if not a general-purpose public figure, then — a limited-purpose public figure.
Russell rejected the notion that Colker is a general-purpose public figure, finding that any fame he has falls short of the household-name status that designation requires. The judge indicated that Colker may be considered a limited-purpose public figure as it concerns alternative medicine, but he is not a limited-purpose public figure in this lawsuit because the allegedly defamatory statements don’t concern alternative medicine, but instead concern a more specific issue.
“Defendants’ statements about ‘mystery pills’ and ‘intravenous infusions of unknown contents’ did not purport to engage in the debate surrounding alternative medicine,” Russell wrote in her order, “rather, they questioned a far narrower (and private) concern: Colker’s record of treating Janel Grant from 2019-2022.”
Callis and Holland Law Firm, however, will be allowed a later stage of the case to revise their arguments, contending that Colker and his clinic are public figures, the judge ruled.
With the motion to dismiss denied, the case now likely moves into the discovery phase. Callis is due to file an answer to Colker’s original complaint on April 6.
The case is being litigated in the U.S. District Court in the District of Connecticut. Russell is the judge overseeing three active cases that currently have ties to WWE. In addition to this case and Grant’s sex trafficking case against WWE and Vince McMahon, Russell also presides over the relatively new class action case against WWE related to how the company marketed the move of its major events to the ESPN Unlimited streaming platform.
