Well, we knew it would happen, it was just a matter of when. Dr. Michael Mann is trying to weasel out of discovery in the Mann-Steyn Steamroller case.
Steyn reports on the latest: ==========================================================
You can read the whole thing here. But the takeaway is that, apparently, it’s all my fault:
On January 30, 2014, Plaintiff renewed his discovery requests against National Review. National Review responded by e-mail on February 7, reminding Plaintiff’s counsel that this Court had already ruled that discovery should be stayed until its Anti-SLAPP motion could be finally resolved in the Court of Appeals. In response, Plaintiff’s counsel indicated that while he did not agree with National Review’s position, he would not press the issue of discovery for the time being. A few weeks later, however, on March 6, Plaintiff’s counsel called National Review’s counsel to renew his discovery requests yet again. Plaintiff’s counsel explained that he felt obliged to renew discovery because National Review’s co-defendant, Mark Steyn, had decided not to pursue an appeal, and had instead indicated his desire to proceed with discovery against Plaintiff. Thus, according to Plaintiff’s counsel, it would be impracticable to proceed with discovery between himself and Steyn without the involvement of the other co-Defendants.
Putting aside the bizarre posture of National Review, now standing athwart the DC court calendar yelling “Stop!”, we should not overlook the real significance of this document. Ever since this wretched case began a year-and-a-half ago, those who know Dr Mann have been saying that he would obstruct discovery, as he’s currently doing in court in Vancouver and Virginia. Today’s filing marks the first confirmation that such is the case.
What is so “impracticable” about proceeding with discovery between me and him? There are four defendants, so Mann has served four separate requests for discovery. I’ve returned mine; National Review, CEI and Rand Simberg are sitting on theirs. The four defendants will in turn submit, collectively, four requests for discovery upon Dr Mann. Why is responding to mine ahead of NR’s any more “impracticable” than me responding to his ahead of NR’s response? What’s so difficult about that? Where, indeed, is there even a smidgeonette of “impracticability”?
There are four defendants and one plaintiff. Of the five of us, I seem to be the only one anxious to exercise his right to a speedy trial. Furthermore, NR’s pleadings make a basic error:
If National Review’s appeal succeeds, then the claims against Steyn will almost certainly need to be dismissed as well, thus vitiating the need for any discovery at all.
Not so. I’ve countersued Dr Mann for $30 million. So, even if NR’s appeal succeeds, Mann and I will still be headed to trial. He claimed to want his day in court, and I took him at his word and have determined to give him it.