Yes, this is correct--the judge denied Disney's motion to dismiss, which argued that they had a First Amendment right to fire Carano. The judge basically ruled that, at this stage, there's no evidence to back up their First Amendment defense, and Carano's case is legally plausible.
The discovery phase involves both sides exchanging documents (and they've already exchanged thousands of pages, probably mostly emails), and then they'll depose each other's witnesses, and then there will likely be cross-motions for summary judgment. Meaning Carano will say she's entitled to judgment as a matter of law based on the evidence produced in discovery, and Disney will file theirs saying they're entitled to the same. The judge's ruling on that will decide (possibly pending appeals) whether the case goes to trial.
In all likelihood, Disney will reassert their First Amendment defense in their summary judgment motion, but they don't have an easy case. The California statute Carano is suing under specifically protects her personal right to expressive behavior outside of work, which is what she was fired over. Disney would have to convince the judge that California's strong policy interest in protecting workers from censorious employers is less important than their First Amendment right to be a censorious employer. Not a case I'd want to be making.
