Janel Grant has scored a victory in the courts of law as the Connecticut Superior Court ruled that her bill of discovery against Dr. Carlon Colker and Peak Wellness will be filed.

In June, Grant filed requests seeking access to communications made between Colker and his staff with Vince McMahon or WWE. She sought any potential travel records, information about the nature and purpose of the I.V. treatments and supplements she received at Peak Wellness, the operating practices and policies of the clinic, and any surveillance footage showing Grant or McMahon on the premises owned by Colker or the clinic from March 1, 2019, to May 1, 2022.

In her original lawsuit from January 2024, Grant’s attorneys assert that she visited Peak Wellness over sixty times between 2019 and 2022 at McMahon’s suggestion.

Grant claims that Colker and Peak Wellness provided her with supplements and infusions that were not disclosed to her.

Colker continues to reject any allegations of wrongdoing and asserts that Grant has received all her medical records. He filed a defamation lawsuit against Grant’s attorney, Ann Callis, in May.

You can check out an excerpt of the court ruling below:

“This action is a Bill of Discovery. “The bill of discovery is an independent action in equity for discovery, and is designed to obtain evidence for use in an action other than the one in which discovery is sought … As a power to enforce discovery, the bill is within the inherent power of a court of equity that has been a procedural tool in use for centuries… The bill is well recognized and may be entertained notwithstanding the statutes and rules of court relative to discovery.” (Citations omitted.) Berger v. Cuomo, 230 Conn. 1, 5-6, 644 A.2d 333 (1994); see also In re Cadle Co., 129 Conn.App. 814, 821, 21 A.3d 572, cert. denied, 302 Conn. 914, 27 A.3d 373 (2011). “According to the general principles and practices of the equity courts, a bill of discovery may be filed for the discovery of facts in the knowledge of an adverse party or deeds or writings or other things in his custody and power, and it is usually employed to enable a party to prosecute or defend an action.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Peyton v. Werhane, 126 Conn. 382, 388-89, 11 A.2d 800 (1940). The parties are ordered to submit proposed scheduling orders for interrogatories and objections thereto, requests for production and objections thereto and deposition notices and objections thereto pursuant to court order 116.01.”