<i><b>Online Extra:</i></b>New Round in Producer's Fight Against WWE

According to a lawsuit filed in Connecticut's Bridgeport Superior Court, a well-known wrestler may have crossed the line with an alleged attack on a World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) video producer during a pay-per-view event. Andrew Green, of Simsbury, CN, says he was assaulted by 7-foot-tall, 440-pound Paul Wight Jr., who performs under the name “Big Show” and has appeared in several nonwrestling movies.

Green's claim also names Stamford, CT-based WWE, which placed the video of the alleged attack on its website, where it was reportedly viewed more than 100,000 times. “WWE encourages its wrestlers, including Wight, to act in a violent manner inside and outside the ring,” according to the lawsuit filed by Stamford attorney Edward Kanowitz. “WWE has routinely publicized the violent and erratic behavior of its wrestlers, including Wight, both on the WWE website and elsewhere.” Green v. Wight, FBT-CV-15-6047850-S.

The incident took place in Phoenix during a Jan. 27, 2013, event called the Royal Rumble. Wight had just finished a match and was supposed to be interviewed by Green. According to the complaint, Wight swore at Green and refused the interview. Moments later, according to the claim, Wight reportedly told Green to start filming. At that point, Wight allegedly grabbed Green by the throat, hit him in the face and backed him against an equipment trunk. “You son of a bitch ' are you having fun right now? ' Don't ever come up to me again,” Wight said, according to the complaint.

Green claims the attack left him with facial injuries, cervical strain, depression and post-traumatic stress. The lawsuit accuses Wight of three types of assault and three types of infliction of emotional distress. In emotional distress claims against WWE, Green said that a “subdued” Wight returned to shoot two more versions of the interview. But the WWE ultimately aired the attack on its website, according to the complaint, which added: “[The] WWE's conduct in promoting the attack was extreme and outrageous.”

The lawsuit also charges the wrestling organization with two employment law counts: negligent supervision and negligent retention. The lawsuit said the WWE knew that Wight was prone to violent episodes outside the ring.

The lawsuit was originally filed in Arizona courts. Painting the dispute as largely an intellectual property issue, the WWE unsuccessfully attempted to move the case to federal court, where it was prepared to counter Green's argument that he should be compensated for the company profiting from the website traffic. Green re-filed the suit in Connecticut court in January 2015.

The WWE said Green signed a waiver stating that employees don't get paid extra if the company uses video footage of them in promotions. “WWE is the sole owner of the copyright in the video footage of the interview and Mr. Green explicitly released WWE from all claims of liability ' including, specifically, those claims asserted in this lawsuit ' arising out of the exploitation of such footage,” the company said.

Paul Sussman is Editor-in-Chief of Connecticut Law Tribune, an ALM sibling of Entertainment Law & Finance.

According to a lawsuit filed in Connecticut's Bridgeport Superior Court, a well-known wrestler may have crossed the line with an alleged attack on a World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) video producer during a pay-per-view event. Andrew Green, of Simsbury, CN, says he was assaulted by 7-foot-tall, 440-pound Paul Wight Jr., who performs under the name “Big Show” and has appeared in several nonwrestling movies.

Green's claim also names Stamford, CT-based WWE, which placed the video of the alleged attack on its website, where it was reportedly viewed more than 100,000 times. “WWE encourages its wrestlers, including Wight, to act in a violent manner inside and outside the ring,” according to the lawsuit filed by Stamford attorney Edward Kanowitz. “WWE has routinely publicized the violent and erratic behavior of its wrestlers, including Wight, both on the WWE website and elsewhere.” Green v. Wight, FBT-CV-15-6047850-S.

The incident took place in Phoenix during a Jan. 27, 2013, event called the Royal Rumble. Wight had just finished a match and was supposed to be interviewed by Green. According to the complaint, Wight swore at Green and refused the interview. Moments later, according to the claim, Wight reportedly told Green to start filming. At that point, Wight allegedly grabbed Green by the throat, hit him in the face and backed him against an equipment trunk. “You son of a bitch ' are you having fun right now? ' Don't ever come up to me again,” Wight said, according to the complaint.

Green claims the attack left him with facial injuries, cervical strain, depression and post-traumatic stress. The lawsuit accuses Wight of three types of assault and three types of infliction of emotional distress. In emotional distress claims against WWE, Green said that a “subdued” Wight returned to shoot two more versions of the interview. But the WWE ultimately aired the attack on its website, according to the complaint, which added: “[The] WWE's conduct in promoting the attack was extreme and outrageous.”

The lawsuit also charges the wrestling organization with two employment law counts: negligent supervision and negligent retention. The lawsuit said the WWE knew that Wight was prone to violent episodes outside the ring.

The lawsuit was originally filed in Arizona courts. Painting the dispute as largely an intellectual property issue, the WWE unsuccessfully attempted to move the case to federal court, where it was prepared to counter Green's argument that he should be compensated for the company profiting from the website traffic. Green re-filed the suit in Connecticut court in January 2015.

The WWE said Green signed a waiver stating that employees don't get paid extra if the company uses video footage of them in promotions. “WWE is the sole owner of the copyright in the video footage of the interview and Mr. Green explicitly released WWE from all claims of liability ' including, specifically, those claims asserted in this lawsuit ' arising out of the exploitation of such footage,” the company said.

Paul Sussman is Editor-in-Chief of Connecticut Law Tribune, an ALM sibling of Entertainment Law & Finance.