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.
Maybe he has destroyed them. Bit of a thin defense for not being able to present his case. Like the dog ate my homework.
The purpose of Mann’s lawsuit is to use the cost of litigation to stifle the speech of those who disagree with him. That is what the Anti-SLAPP motion is all about.
I am as huge a Mark Steyn fan as anyone, but there is nothing wrong with NRO seeking to avoid the costs of responding to discovery. Without seeing the respective discovery requests, it is unclear how extensive Mann’s demands on NRO, but I would bet they are extensive. And the scope of discovery is extremely broad.
Steyn is an individual. So his costs of production will be manageable, particularly since he won’t have a group of lawyers.to pay to prepare and review his responses. NRO’s responses to discovery on the other hand will likely involve substantial cost. Which, again, is Mann’s tactical goal.
Steyn is litigating in a way designed to conduct the litigation in a way designed to humiliate Mann. And good for him. Personally I would love to see discovery from Mann. But NRO is following good legal advice in trying to minimize not just the cost of the litigation, but the potential for a large judgment.
Oh, and Mann has filed a motion to dismiss Steyn’s, shall we say, creative counterclaims. There is no guarantee the claims will survive, since they are based on the same type of allegations as NRO’s Anti-Slapp motion. Steyn should hope NRO wins its appeal.
If you think Mikie, Steyn has no financial backing to pursue this case, I think you are totally off the planet. These are just desperate appeals to stop this court case going into court. I am not a lawyer but I feel there are lawyers on this site, and I hope they are prepared to intervene and give some advice? Yet it has even been to court yet!
re: milodonharlani says: March 20, 2014 at 1:03 pm
Mann’s
barkwhine is apparently rather regularly far worse than his bite. We keep miniature violins on hand to serenade his whining when he opens his mouth and starts his spiel from atop his large sized manure spreader.That said, I sure hope Mark Steyn manages to actually get full disclosure of all sorts of Mann’s research and “work.” And then rips it to shred during court.
He should start examine his tree ring theory. To start with Bristlecone pines being very long lived, also caused archaeologist to test their Carbon 14 analysts. Seems there were times when the earth got bombarded by an extra dose of Carbon 13 or 14, from outer space, so now it is impossible to get an accurate reading with some artifact that is younger than 5,000 so they put now a minus and plus on their reading. It also went up when they were testing atom bombs in the atmosphere, not underground or under the sea. My late mum related when she was young born 1908 they had lovely summers, and in the 40s – 60s they were rotten. Seems to correspond with all the warfare going on doesn’t it?
From SteynOnline March 24, 2014: What Kind of Fool Am I?
Ever since I ended my joint representation with National Review and fired my lawyers on Boxing Day, the endlessly reprised refrain has been that “Mark Steyn has a fool for a client”……
So I am pleased to be able to announce today that several other fellows also have a fool for a client….
Daniel J Kornstein and his co-counsel Mark Platt were the driving force behind the most consequential free-speech legislation this century. Dan is an expert libel lawyer and a principled freedom-of-expression fighter …..
….joining Messrs Kornstein and Platt will be Michael J Songer, co-chair of the Litigation Group at Crowell & Moring in Washington, DC. ….. Mike is also a freespeecher, who teaches a course on the Law of Cyberspace at Georgetown University. He’s big on issues of copyright and intellectual property, which Mann has frequently hidden behind in his attempts to avoid disclosing the data and research that produced his “hockey stick”. In addition, Mike is a science graduate, so he understands both the technical jargon and, just as importantly, how to distill it for a jury.
So I’m no longer an out-of-control full-bore crazy. Instead, I’m an out-of-control full-bore crazy who’s lawyered up to the hilt. …..
I’m also overwhelmed by the number of lawyers from across America who have offered their services and advice pro bono or at steeply discounted rates. It is heartening to know how many understand the stakes for free speech in America. Dan, Mark and Mike believe in this case, understand its importance, and together we will prevail. [end]
Follow https://www.facebook.com/MarkSteynOnline
National Review isn’t a shadow of what it was when I started reading it in the mid 70’s. Who is surprised by their lack of balls? Every time I’m drawn to that site I miss WFB even more. He never wimped out in court! He was a fighter just like Steyn.
Go Mark! Get your day in court and burn Mann for the full 10 mill. You make them all look weak.
Anyone heard when this infamous court case is likely to be heard?