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.
=======================================================
More here: http://www.steynonline.com/6184/oh-wont-you-stay-ay-ay-just-a-little-bit-longer
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
You sue four defendants – you open yourself up to fighting on four fronts. His choice. For a guy with a fool for a lawyer (at least according to so warmist bloggers like Appell and Bickmore) Steyn is not doing too badly…
A few years ago there was a case SCO v IBM. SCO sued IBM over an intellectual property issue related to the Unix patents which SCO asserted they owned and to which IBM, they asserted, infringed. SCO then went on the sue Red Hat, Novell, DamlerChrysler, and Autozone. SCO masterfully worked each of the litigants off each other — doing things like filing a motion to stay the one pending the resolution of the other and then filing a motion to stay the other pending the resolution of the one! The litigation went on for 7 years. Theoretically, if Mann’s objective is to visit economic hardship of the defendants, then perusing a SCO-like strategy would be the way to do it.
But I happen to like Steyn’s bat sh*t crazy strategy: keep you costs low, take some early losses and make it up on appeal, and appeal, and appeal. Its legal rope-a-dope that I suspect Mann’s team was not prepared for. All the while, Steyn seems to be enjoying himself.
P. Berkin says:
March 20, 2014 at 2:01 pm
Anthony, how about putting a counter on the home page showing the lapsed number of days until Michael Mann yields to the discovery request?
+++
better make it a 32 bit counter
@ur momisugly dbstealey says:
March 20, 2014 at 2:23 pm
Typing all that out to post at SciAm, you must be a glutton for punishment.
Use to be SciAm’s blogs were modded on an individual basis, that is to say, the author of the post you were commenting on would be the guy deciding what was worthy, if mods were used at all.
I think it was about 2008 when SciAm changed up their system, so it could be easily censored by overlord, to match the one editor’s policy position.
I have sent Mr. Steyn a check for $100 , USA, for a gift certificate I will never cash unless Mr. Steyn is PAID a hugh settlement from Mickey Mouse Mann. I do not usually contribute to this type of thing, but I urge everyone reading these words to join me with whatever you can afford.
As should be clear to everyone by now, there is nothing “scientific” about Sci-Am, as it is now nothing but a political mouthpiece for a currently fashionable cult. Those of us who remember when it was worthwhile can lament the passing of what was once a great name, while eagerly anticipating its demise.
Which won’t be long – that’s a big reason for the scare-mongering. They’ve painted themselves into a corner by flogging a political horse in order to sell magazines. When the political movement falls apart, so will that magazine. I imagine it will continue as some vanity blog, but that will be about it.
I doubt there are many subscriptions left among readers here, but if there are any, it is long past time to cancel them. Sci-Am is dead, and there is nothing to be gained by propping up (or for that matter, trying to talk to) a rotting corpse.
Really, that’s the strategy? Make it up on appeal? I really think that he KNOWS Mann cannot afford to actually go into discovery and he’s called his bluff. He won’t have to make it up on appeal if his discovery finds enough dirt vindicate him. It’s at LEAST possible, no? After all, why has Mann avoided discovery and scrutiny for so long and so hard?
Poker, it’s not just a card game, folks. Ask Putin!
AAA
dbstealey: Thank you for your comment – the one that got you banned from SciAm. It was very good. I went to the SciAm article by Mann and read the comments. The laugh – actually, a guffaw – is that many of the strident alarmist/Mann supporters are responding to comments that have obviously been removed. So, in the favourite words of the warmistas, they are out of context! (Most of the responses seem to be bile-filled rants against Hschtick). So bloody funny.
This case is all about discovery….
Those suffering from climate hubris may end up being surprised by Steyn.
Bart says (March 20, 2014 at 2:19 pm)
Would that be the environmentalist lapse rate? (-:
He’s spent years in court dodging discovery. That’s not going to change. I say: aggressively pursue discovery!
The way I heard it, in 2005 he coughed up to Mac (essentially) the code for MBH98 — under threat of congressional subpoena. And that’s when his troubles began.
And now, nine long years later, he is running out of dodges. But he is too far out on a limb to get back. I accept his sincerity (though not much else). And I think he really believes those things he believes. He turned out to be the wrong Mann in the wrong place at the wrong time. I feel kind of sorry for the guy.
P. Berkin says:
>Anthony, how about putting a counter on the home page showing the lapsed number of days until Michael Mann yields to the discovery request?
I Agree with Bart about the name of the indicator: Lapse Rate (like a bank rate – it goes up)
Lapse Rate is a climate term.
The window for proof CO2-AGW has lapsed.
The rate of warming has lapsed.
The time for proving the models correct has lapsed.
The number of things that have lapsed is increasing at a high rate.
The number of days that will elapse stalling ‘discovery’ may set a new record. We should keep an eye on it.
I suspect the counter-suit-ee will not encounter the same dawdling from the plaintiff, Steyn who seems really anxious to give him that for which he so stridently asked.
“I’ve countersued Dr Mann for $30 million. So, even if NR’s appeal succeeds, Mann and I will still be headed to trial.”
No, you won’t, Steyn. Sadly, your countersuit has no standing and will certainly be dismissed, as PopeHat and other conservative legal bloggers have tried to warn you.
dbstealey, another appreciation here! Like I said in another thread, the problem with CAGW sceptics is that they are a well informed group of people who study the facts and argue their possition tenaciously. I don’t remember who actually said that but when I read it I was floored. You have quite nicely wrapped up the issue in a tidy comment. No wonder Sci Am bumped your comment. As for the meter for Mannitus, perhaps the “Mann O Man O Meter”?? measured in singular popped corn kernels per day …..
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.
So now Steyn the self-representing litigant is reviewing the work of real lawyers? And if (or more likely, when) his $30 million counterclaim is dismissed with prejudice and costs, what is his fallback position? Another attack on the case judge?
” wws says:March 20, 2014 at 1:01 pm
I’ve lost a lot of respect for NR, owing to their gutlessness in fighting this case.”
What “gutlessness” would that be, exactly? They’re using a very well-regarded law firm with expertise in this field, and they’re continuing the fight — they’re just not blowing their horn about it the way Steyn is. And unlike Steyn, they actually are willing to recognize what they can and cannot do in the current American legal system.
Read PopeHat’s “Fool for a Client” post from last week and you’ll realize Steyn, not NR, is the one you should be losing respect for.
“So now Steyn the self-representing litigant is reviewing the work of real lawyers? And if (or more likely, when) his $30 million counterclaim is dismissed with prejudice and costs, what is his fallback position? Another attack on the case judge?”
Exactly right, Magma. Steyn’s grandstanding and arrogance are actually endangering the very cause he claims to be fighting for.
If Mann finds discovery to be “impractical”, then he should pay Steyn his $30 million.
Magma says:
So now Steyn the self-representing litigant is reviewing the work of real lawyers?
You sound worried.
[But Steyn doesn’t seem worried…]
Sorry, but I lost it at NR’s legal team.
Rob Hobart says:
March 20, 2014 at 3:57 pm
“No, you won’t, Steyn. Sadly, your countersuit has no standing and will certainly be dismissed, as PopeHat and other conservative legal bloggers have tried to warn you.”
Has the judge ruled on that already? I’m surprised. doesn’t seem like 12 years have elapsed.
Magma says: March 20, 2014 at 3:59 pm
Likely reams of additional material with which to ridicule mercilessly Mann’s non-compliance with discovery, already in progress. That’ll do nicely until a trial date, probably several years hence.
To Rob Hobart, who wrote:”when his $30 million counterclaim is dismissed with prejudice and costs,”
You are assuming that this is an English case. Nobody gets awarded costs in the US system (with a couple extremely rare exceptions,usually involving criminal negligence) It’s probably the greatest weakness in the US system, but it makes filing lawsuits in the US virtually risk-free. Even if they’re baseless, the object of your suit still has to pay a lot of money just to deal with the nonsense. That’s what Mann has been doing, and so Steyn is just returning the favor.
(And even if the complaint is dismissed, you can appeal the dismissal, and so on, and so forth, and keep the aggravation going for years. It’s called “lawfare”.)
P. Berkin says: March 20, 2014 at 2:01 pm
A stellar idea…but probably more appropriate for SteynOnline. Still, I wouldn’t be adverse to seeing one here in the sidebar.