McMahons ask federal judge to deny plaintiffs use of pseudonyms
Summary
– Vince and Linda McMahon filed legal opposition to plaintiffs remaining anonymous
– The lawsuit involves former WWF ring boys alleging abuse and negligence
– The court is expected to consider the matter after an early February response deadline
Vince McMahon and Linda McMahon have formally moved to block former WWE ring boys from continuing to use pseudonyms in their ongoing federal lawsuit.
On January 26, 2026, both McMahons filed separate but nearly identical legal briefs in Maryland federal court opposing the plaintiffs’ request to remain anonymous. The filings argue that allowing the use of pseudonyms would unfairly limit their ability to defend themselves as the case moves into the discovery phase.
The lawsuit was filed by seven men, now in their 50s, who allege they were sexually abused as children while working as ring boys during the WWF era. The abuse is primarily attributed to former WWF ring announcer Mel Phillips, who died in 2012. The plaintiffs accuse Vince and Linda McMahon of negligence in failing to prevent the alleged abuse. Both McMahons have denied having any knowledge of or involvement in the incidents.
Earlier this month, the plaintiffs asked the court for permission to continue using “John Doe” identities. They cited lasting psychological trauma, emotional distress, and the risk of public exposure as reasons for remaining anonymous. The request also included a proposed protective order aimed at limiting how their identities could be handled during discovery, even though the McMahons already know their real names.
In opposition, the McMahons pointed to recent civil rulings in New York involving Sean Combs and Kevin Spacey, in which plaintiffs were required to proceed under their legal names. While acknowledging that those cases occurred in a different jurisdiction, the filings urge the Maryland court to consider similar reasoning.
Neither WWE nor TKO has opposed the plaintiffs’ anonymity request. According to the plaintiffs, both corporate entities have taken no position on the matter and are not expected to intervene.
The court is not anticipated to rule until after February 6, when the plaintiffs’ deadline to respond to the McMahons’ opposition expires. A decision requiring public identification could carry broader implications for how anonymity requests are handled in future abuse-related cases.
