Getting Expensive for Mann

Michael Mann has lost a motion in the DC Superior Court. He will now be responsible for the majority of legal costs for discovery in his perpetual libel suits against Steyn and the National Review.

Accordingly, it is this 22nd day of June 2020 hereby
ORDERED that Defendants Competitive Enterprise Institute’s and Rand Simberg’s Motion for Payment of Expenses is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that Defendants are awarded the expenses in connection with the motion to compel discovery in the amount of 9588.64.

June 22 Decision

This is on top off losing the motion to by defendants last month to compel discovery.

ORDERED that Defendants Competitive Enterprise Institute’s and Rand Simberg’s Motion to Compel Discovery is GRANTED IN PART; it is further

ORDERED that discovery responses are limited to the period of 2007 to the present; it is further

ORDERED that Plaintiff produce all responsive documents to Requests 1-3, 7-8, and Requests 10-11 in CEI Defendants’ Second Set of Requests for Production. It is further Page 5 of 5 ORDERED that Plaintiff provide the information requested in Interrogatories 2-4 in CEI Defendants’ First Set of Interrogatories and Interrogatories 22-23, 25, 26, 29, and 31 in CEI
Defendants’ Second Set of Interrogatories.

May 5 Decision

0 0 votes
Article Rating
189 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Editor
June 23, 2020 11:12 pm

It really seems like the only sensible thing for Mann et al to do is drop the case. I imagine that would expose them to demands to pay all of the defendants’ costs. It might also destroy Mann’s credibility in any other similar cases. Still, it seems to be the only sensible thing to do.

Rob_Dawg
Reply to  Ric Werme
June 23, 2020 11:57 pm

Steyn has counter sued so he cannot avoid a verdict.

cedarhill
Reply to  Rob_Dawg
June 24, 2020 6:02 am

He can simply still refuse to provide anything. That was the tactic in the Canadian libel case he filed (vs Dr. Timothy Ball). This case has been going on for years (since 2012) and has served the agenda of the climate alarmists.

What will happen should Mann & Team continue stonewalling? The court, under the Federal Rules of Civel Procedure Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(i)—(vi) is required to make the refusing party to pay costs (which the Court has done). It has many optional sanctions it can order making it difficult to predict.

How the case will proceed from here? I’m guessing Mann & Team will continue to claim “protected data”, etc., and see a repeat of his loss in the Canadian case for the same reasons. The Styne counter suit will go to summary judgement against Mann. Then Mann would then, after appeals, discharge all except the fines in bankruptcy and earn the Left’s martyr” status. If he’s jailed for contempt (extremely unlikely), change martyr to saint. Up to today, Mann and Team are willing to pay the price in order to keep the stick protected.

ScienceABC123
Reply to  cedarhill
June 24, 2020 6:36 am

Agreed. Those who don’t learn from their past mistakes tend to repeat them.

BrianB
Reply to  cedarhill
June 24, 2020 7:15 am

If he refuses to provide anything after a court order compelling him to, which would probably result in the dismissal of his case, he would stand a very good chance of being compelled to not only pay the defendants court costs, but being sanctioned or otherwise compelled to pay their legal fees which would be vastly more costly.
Whether the creep is actually paying for any of this is of course unlikely.

Reply to  BrianB
June 24, 2020 8:58 am

No, it’s worse than that. If one side can provide documents – even hearsay documents – that support their claims and no countermanding documents are produced by the other the court must accept those documents presented as representing fact. Failure to produce is almost always more damning than providing discovery compliant with discovery requests. I’ve worked in this field for ~30 years now. Failure to produce is never a good strategy. A simple dismissal would be the best possible outcome and not likely – even in DC. On the flip side, Mann would have good grounds to sue his attorneys. Except this non-compliance is probably at his direction.

ATheoK
Reply to  BrianB
June 24, 2020 10:50 am

“BrianB June 24, 2020 at 7:15 am

Whether the creep is actually paying for any of this is of course unlikely.”

Whether manniacal creep is paying or other parties are covering costs for him, Mann is fully liable to pay income taxes on all funds pursuing or defending Mann.

It gets real dicey, if Mann has someone else paying Mann’s income taxes on the trial 1040 IRS costs.
Mann’s benefits, professional and personal, from the lawsuits are likely ignored in these kinds of income tax filings. Especially as manniacal’s professional career continues because he’s silencing debate and stifling honest science.

Every chance anybody gets, they should identify Mann as good material for IRS investigations.
IRS even pays percentage bounties for target suggestions that identify income tax fraud.

B d Clark
Reply to  ATheoK
June 24, 2020 11:13 am

Very good points, after years of fighting legal battles his fees must be huge, can he show hes paid tax on income for these amounts , or can advocates just stump up the cash on his behalf?.

Observer
Reply to  BrianB
June 24, 2020 4:29 pm

His fees are probably being met by The Usual Suspects.

kenji
Reply to  BrianB
June 27, 2020 1:34 pm

I expect there is SO MUCH on the line for the entire political charade of CAGW … that every Eco-Foundation and “Environmental” slush fund will be $paying$ to keep Mann from having to show his work. You know, the kind of thing that would have guaranteed an ‘F’ in science classes of yesteryear …

Rachelle
Reply to  cedarhill
June 25, 2020 5:52 pm

If a party refuses to provide discovery ordered by the court that party can be found in civil contempt and fined or jailed until the party complies. The expression used when a person is jailed for civil contempt is “you have the keys”, meaning you can open the cell door the moment you comply with the court order.

jdgalt
Reply to  cedarhill
June 25, 2020 7:08 pm

Wouldn’t it also result in a default judgment in favor of Steyn, Simberg, and CEI?

Shamrock
Reply to  cedarhill
June 27, 2020 1:18 pm

According to the watermelon warmists, science must be transparent, unless someone wants it to be transparent of coure.

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  Shamrock
June 29, 2020 4:34 pm

Opaque.

Reply to  Rob_Dawg
June 24, 2020 2:41 pm

“Steyn has counter sued so he cannot avoid a verdict.”
What WUWT did not note was the far more significant action by this judge:
“Since Steyn’s special motion to dismiss and Rule 12(b)(6) motion were denied on the grounds that a reasonable jury is likely to find in favor of Mann in his defamation lawsuit, Mann’s lawsuit
against Steyn is far from frivolous or groundless.

Accordingly, it is hereby this 29th day of August 2019, hereby
ORDERED that Counter-plaintiff Mark Steyn’s counterclaims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. “

Chris
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 24, 2020 7:05 pm

“Dismissed with Prejudice” means that Steyn can bring the same counterclaims again at a later time, if my Legalese is correct.

Reply to  Chris
June 24, 2020 7:18 pm

My understanding is that it means he can’t do that.

She sounded pretty dismissive.

aelfheld
Reply to  Chris
June 25, 2020 9:09 am

‘Dismissed with prejudice’ means no further motions can be made on this.

WR2
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 24, 2020 8:56 pm

You can’t seriously be supporting Mann’s actions. Even if you are firmly in the AGW crowd, suing people that criticize your work is the action of someone that does not really have confidence in their work. If your work was good, any criticism would be easily dismissed. Do you really think it’s a good idea to move scientific debate into the courts?

aelfheld
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 25, 2020 9:15 am

That order is from August 2019.

Gras Albert
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 26, 2020 7:07 am

Very happy for Nick Stokes to tie his credibility to that of self anointed Nobel Prize winner, Michael Mann

The domino effect strong with them is

Freddie Stoller
Reply to  Ric Werme
June 24, 2020 2:03 am

Mr. Werme: “Mann’s credibility” that really made my day!!

Editor
Reply to  Freddie Stoller
June 24, 2020 6:21 am

🙂

Ron Long
Reply to  Ric Werme
June 24, 2020 3:07 am

Rick, if the Manniac did sensible things he wouldn’t be in this predicament. Thanks, CTM, I like a happy story to start off my day.

KOmrade Kuma
Reply to  Ric Werme
June 24, 2020 11:38 am

Ric, sorry to badger you but “Mann” and “sensible” let alone “credibility” in the same sentence?

/sarc

aelfheld
Reply to  Ric Werme
June 25, 2020 9:07 am

Mann has credibility?

Richard (the cynical one)
June 23, 2020 11:15 pm

Since common sense, respect for truth and a desire for integrity haven’t motivated the Mann, hopefully the pain of a depleted wallet might.

JEHILL
Reply to  Richard (the cynical one)
June 24, 2020 1:12 am

Mann is using someone else’s pockets to pay for all of this. My guess would be the taxpayers are being swindled out of their dollars on some of these costs. The other dollars are coming from excrement posing as humans but that is giving perfectly good and useful excrement a bad name.

LdB
Reply to  JEHILL
June 24, 2020 4:32 am

Correct someone else always plays Mann’s bills.

Al Miller
Reply to  LdB
June 24, 2020 7:53 am

Well at least those losers funding this lawfare are bleeding a bit. That’s a small victory in itself.

mario lento
June 23, 2020 11:17 pm

Wonderful!!!

Keith W
June 23, 2020 11:22 pm

To quote “Stone Cold” Steve Austin, can we get a Hell, Yeah!

June 23, 2020 11:36 pm

“He will now be responsible for the majority of legal costs for discovery”
No, it seems that the costs concerned are for litigating this particular motion.

B d Clark
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 23, 2020 11:47 pm

Your wrong the court ordered the defendants 75% of legal fees against mann,plus all litigation costs .

Reply to  B d Clark
June 24, 2020 12:02 am

Costs for litigating this motion, not for discovery (which is what the article says). Discovery hasn’t happened yet.

B d Clark
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 24, 2020 12:08 am

Read my second post you idiot hes had 75% of legal fees awarded against him.

Your post your first post says,
“He will now be responsible for the majority of legal costs for discovery”
No, it seems that the costs concerned are for litigating this particular motion”

Read the judgement the link is at the top of the page.

Greg
Reply to  B d Clark
June 24, 2020 2:30 am

Your wrong the court ordered …

Before calling someone an “idiot”, it’s best learn to write, otherwise you may end up looking like an idiot who writes everything just like it sounds.

Being able to read and understand the article you are commenting on would also be a bonus before sounding off. Then you could avoid having to attempt a disingenuous, twisted rewrite of your own comments and pretend you meant something else.

75% of legal fees against mann,plus all litigation costs .

It does not matter if the cost are [only] for motion

When Nick Stokes told you:
“No, it seems that the costs concerned are for litigating this particular motion.”

You replied “your [sic] wrong” , then called him an idiot, then tried to pretend you weren’t wrong yourself.

Your an idiot ! [sic]

B d Clark
Reply to  Greg
June 24, 2020 3:37 am

Seems to me your the sites irrelevant troll, do you not understand mann was awarded against lawyer fees and litigation costs ,which is what this article states and the court ruling states, stokes first reply contradicts that,in the first part.

But you already know that ,another case of your irrelevant trolling idiot.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  B d Clark
June 24, 2020 2:58 am

“Greg June 24, 2020 at 2:30 am”

So who isn’t the idiot? Legal issues, I don’t know until I am arrested.

Bryan A
Reply to  B d Clark
June 24, 2020 4:52 am

I personally haven’t been involved in any litigation nor has to deal with legalese…
But with that said…
Greg,
Your actions are that of a troll if you would belittle another over missing punctuation i.e.
” ‘ ”
and a slight misspelling
Your You’re
I’m certain you have examples in your own past of similar faux pas
Misspellings can happen especially with the advent of autocorrect
Insulting someone for a misspelling is the actions of a troll and a bully

Joe _ the non legal expert
Reply to  B d Clark
June 24, 2020 7:37 am

Accordingly, it is this 22nd day of June 2020 hereby
ORDERED that Defendants Competitive Enterprise Institute’s and Rand Simberg’s Motion for Payment of Expenses is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that Defendants are awarded the expenses in connection with the motion to compel discovery in the amount of 9588.64.

BD Clark – Regardless of what you think of N Stokes, the order to pay costs is limited to the costs associated with the motion to compel discovery.

I disagree with Stokes on most everything. But you make yourself look like an idiot when you make statements that obviously wrong and easy to verify when a simple read of the source documents provides the correct answer.

B d Clark
Reply to  Joe _ the non legal expert
June 24, 2020 7:53 am

No you make yourself look like a idiot do you not understand the judge gave in favour of two types of legal costs ,

And what did stokes say littigation only , he was wrong ,your selective quoting and reading .

B d Clark
Reply to  Joe _ the non legal expert
June 24, 2020 8:01 am

Heres the relevant part you failed to quote,

“Therefore, the Court finds it
reasonable to award Defendants 75% of its attorneys’ fees and all of its costs incurred in litigating
the Motion to Compel Discovery. The Court further finds that the fees, as charged, are reasonable.”

What part of the above do you not understand ,heres what stokes said

“He will now be responsible for the majority of legal costs for discovery”
No, it seems that the costs concerned are for litigating this particular motion.

Did you notice stokes disagrees with the quote from the article hes clearly wrong idiot,

Read before you post .

Dave Allentown
Reply to  B d Clark
June 24, 2020 7:50 am

You are needlessly irascible and derogatory.

Here is what happened. The defendants made certain discovery requests, Mann disavowed a duty to comply, and the dispute was resolved by a motion the defendants made to the judge.

The judge issued an order on May 5 granting the majority of defendants’ requested discovery. Subsequently defendants moved that Mann pay the $12,000+ in legal fees and costs (a term of art that includes things like filing fees, courier expenses and other nonoverhead expenses ranging from small to sometimes large), Mann opposed the motion and the court in a June 22 decision and order ruled mostly in defendants’ favor and directed Mann to pay 75%, i.e., the $9000 plus.

The discovery phase of a lawsuit is many-faceted. It typically includes making and responding to interrogatories, production and inspection of documents and things and deposition of multiple witnesses. No doubt this dispute is over a subset of pretrial discovery. The judge did not order Mann to pay any fees or expenses beyond the $9000+ expressly awarded. The article does mistakenly convey the impression that Mann will be obligated to pay defendants’ future attorneys’ fees on discovery matters.

Note there was no “judgment.” Also note my correct American spelling of the word when it is used to refer to a species of court orders. A judgment is an order that finally determines a lawsuit. The two orders referenced in the article are intermediate or “interlocutory” because they decide a proceeding within the suit, but do not decide the final outcome of the suit itself.

My takeaway is Mann, as he did in his Canadian defamation lawsuit against Tim Ball, is refusing to honor valid discovery demands. They probably require disclosure of critical information that produced the infamous “hockey stick.” At least he got a bloody nose by having to pay the $9000+, but I suspect Mann will conceal data or otherwise fail to fully comply and the defendants will have to bear much more in fees and expenses to get to the bottom of this.

B d Clark
Reply to  Dave Allentown
June 24, 2020 8:15 am

The judge did not order Mann to pay any fees or expenses beyond the $9000+ expressly awarded. The article does mistakenly convey the impression that Mann will be obligated to pay defendants’ future attorneys’ fees on discovery matters.”

Is the sun getting to you people today , did you not read the judgement he awarded the littigation fees/costs on top of the legal fees ,I’ve reproduced it 3 times,

You failed to show this or even acknowledge this fact , why?

B d Clark
Reply to  Dave Allentown
June 24, 2020 8:25 am

Your also wrong about judgement, and who cares if its spelt one way or another,your just being pedantic ,,

A judge can not give a order without making a judgement that’s what judges do, she has made a judgement on costs at this stage in the trial,

I and no one else has said any different . Nor has anyone suggested this is a final judgement , your post is really pointless.

joe - the non legal expert
Reply to  B d Clark
June 24, 2020 9:19 am

“B d Clark June 23, 2020 at 11:47 pm
“Your wrong the court ordered the defendants 75% of legal fees against mann,plus all litigation costs .”

The above quote is BD Clark’s original response to Nick stokes

Stokes original statement is correct.
Based on BD Clark’s subsequent statements, BD clark is now claiming the same position that N Stokes made is the position BD Clark initially claimed

BD Clark – note the Stokes put into “quotes” the incorrect statement in the article.

B d Clark
Reply to  joe - the non legal expert
June 24, 2020 9:24 am

Yet you dident quote stokes original post did you troll,

” “He will now be responsible for the majority of legal costs for discovery”
No, it seems that the costs concerned are for litigating this particular motion.”

See troll stokes only mentions one set of costs,

J Mac
Reply to  B d Clark
June 24, 2020 9:40 am

Greg,
When it comes to petulant punctuation and orthography trolls, urine (sic) good company. I hereby dub thee “Typolice TyRant”.

Writing Observer
Reply to  B d Clark
June 24, 2020 1:21 pm

Hate to say it – but in this case, Nick is correct.

B d Clark
Reply to  Writing Observer
June 24, 2020 1:36 pm

Read the judgement, tell me I’m incorrect, stokes never read the article so he did not see the award was for two parts. Which is what I’ve been saying all day, award costs for lawyers costs for littigation, stokes says the former was not awarded.when it clearly was.

Craig from Oz
Reply to  B d Clark
June 24, 2020 9:02 pm

Tell me, Young Greg,

where do you get your magnificent straw men made up?

B d Clark
Reply to  Craig from Oz
June 25, 2020 4:35 am

Used to by the colonists, but it appears they have all gone native.

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 24, 2020 12:18 am

On the wrong end of every argument, eh, Nick?

AndyL
Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
June 24, 2020 12:36 am

Nick is right
The award is for the costs of the motion. The total is under $10K.

B d Clark
Reply to  AndyL
June 24, 2020 1:24 am

It does not matter if the cost are for motion this is what the court awarded

“The Court finds it
reasonable to award Defendants 75% of its attorneys’ fees and all of its costs incurred in litigating
the Motion to Compel Discovery. The Court further finds that the fees, as charged, are reasonable.”

Michael Mann has lost a motion in the DC Superior Court.”

That’s all lawyers costs plus litigation costs,

Heres what stokes said,

“He will now be responsible for the majority of legal costs for discovery”
No, it seems that the costs concerned are for litigating this particular motion.”

AndyL
Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
June 24, 2020 1:40 pm

B d Clark

You claim Nick Stokes said “He will now be responsible for the majority of legal costs for discovery” without even realisng that was the phrase he was quoting and correcting.

Go back and read his post. It’s only two lines long yet you managed to totally misunderstand it.

B d Clark
Reply to  AndyL
June 24, 2020 1:52 pm

“He will now be responsible for the majority of legal costs for discovery”
No, it seems that the costs concerned are for litigating this particular motion.

First sentence is what stokes is quoting that’s why he puts quotation brackets round the sentence.

Then he disagrees in the second sentence stokes never read the judgement, the costs awarded are for littigation, which he agrees with, but saying no to the legal costs is wrong ,he is wrong ,the judgement clearly states for legal costs 75% AND littigation costs ,two seperate parts,

Are All you all on denial drugs today have none of you read the judgement

rbabcock
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 24, 2020 5:24 am

Misspellings with autocorrect happen all the time, especially if you are on a phone typing a response. That said it is always best to proof your post one more time before hitting submit to avoid something that makes you look like, as Bugs Bunny used to say, a maroon.

Calling people names makes you look like a maroon. It really serves no purpose. You can always get your point across by being civil and it conveys your point, not the fact you went back to your elementary school days to compose your response.

Nick Stokes doesn’t agree with a lot of points others have on WUWT, but he definitely is a pretty intelligent person. A lot of people have questions about Michael Mann’s intelligence, but let me remind you he has been on the gravy train for decades so maybe he is smarter than given credit for.

Smart Rock
Reply to  rbabcock
June 24, 2020 10:05 am

B d C seems to be showing the effects of protracted lockdown, and is ranting away with a lot more rancour than coherent thought. Perhaps we should make allowances this time. Lockdowns are no fun.

Nick and Mosher are always polite, if not always comprehensible (mainly that’s Mosher who tends to write as if words were in short supply). Insulting people as a way of expressing disagreement tells us negative things about the insulter, but nothing about the insultee.

As has been said many times on these pages: “When they can’t rebut your arguments, they use ad hominem attacks instead”

Having gone back and read it, I’m sure Nick is right. He usually is, because he usually just reminds us what the head post actually says.

B d Clark
Reply to  Smart Rock
June 24, 2020 11:09 am

Your not very smart though are you, if you were mann you would be writing out two cheques not one,

Smart people understand a littigation lawyer is different to a compiling lawyer, smart people would read the judgement reads lawyers fees 75% and littigation fees undisclosed. Even a unsmart person can see the judge distinguishes between legal fees and litigation fees.

Joe the non legal expert
Reply to  rbabcock
June 24, 2020 10:52 am

BD has definitely gone postal

Nick stokes quoted the incorrect statement in the article, then the next line stated correctly the courts ruling.

BD – Sees the quote – Not realizing nick was quoting the incorrect statement, completely ignores Nick’s correct statement , then proceeds to blast Stokes and any one who points out BD’s error.

B d Clark
Reply to  Joe the non legal expert
June 24, 2020 1:29 pm

Never seen you before on here , that’s probably why your trolling instead of replying to the article ,the article you now say is in error,

Of course the article is correct , but what you dont do Joe is read the link to the judgement which it seems a few on here cant be bothered.

Derg
Reply to  rbabcock
June 24, 2020 11:44 am

“Nick and Mosher are always polite, “

Have you seen Mosh’s douchiness posts lately?

DaveS
Reply to  rbabcock
June 25, 2020 12:23 am

“Nick and Mosher are always polite”

Well, you’re 50% right.

mikebartnz
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 24, 2020 2:17 am

Nick you have become so predictable it has become boring. You seem to argue just for the sake of arguing. It is like a little kid I knew years ago that was constantly saying “What are you doing that for” just so that then briefly he became the centre of attention. Sad , very sad.

Reply to  mikebartnz
June 24, 2020 5:14 am

Nick happens to be right.

The article states

‘He will now be responsible for the majority of legal costs for discovery in his perpetual libel suits against Steyn and the National Review.”

No. he is responsible for the costs for the specific work required in the motion to compel.

Defendants asked for discovery: Give us your documents Mann.! since 2005
Mann said NO. I dont have to.
Defendants did a Motion to compel. (please judge force him to produce the documents)
Mann lost and so must pay for the cost of the motion to compel.

looks to be about 10-15 hours of work.

basically, Mann made them work to get discovery . That is work the lawyers should not have to do because it was Mann’s duty to provide the documents. he made them fight ( file a motion) for what he should have provided. For losing on the motion to compel he has to pay fees FOR THAT SPECIFIC WORK. not for “discovery”

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Steven Mosher
June 24, 2020 6:19 am

Getting a judge to compel discovery is part of discovery.

$10k is not chump change, and at $500 per hour, is about 20 hours. The defendants have certainly been paying other billable costs throughout the time between requesting documents for discovery and the judge’s order. Without counterclaims, they are now completely at Mann’s mercy as to how long this farce continues.

The only winners are the attorneys.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
June 24, 2020 8:25 am

Stokes and Mosher,

Mr. Rotter wrote, “He will now be responsible for the majority of legal costs for discovery in his perpetual libel suits …”

This statement seems correct to me. Mann lost the motion to compel discovery and the Court ordered him to pay most of the defendants’ costs and fees. My understanding is that such orders are punitive. In other words, the court punished Mann for mounting an improper defense of the motion to compel.

Now Mann will have to actually produce the requested document, and answer the questions (interrogatories) or face further sanctions from the Court. He will, “be responsible for the majority of legal costs for discovery” because he will have to pay his attorneys to actually perform the discovery; collect and review the documents, draft answers to the interrogatories, etc.

“The majority of costs” could be a bit of an over statement. We cannot know without knowing what discovery requests were served on the defendants. It’s possible, probably likely, that requests for documents and interrogatories that were served on the defendants were not very burdensome. What they wrote is a matter of record, it’s either libel or it’s not.

More importantly, in order to collect compensatory damages, which are cash payments from the defendants to compensate for damage caused by the tort, Mann will have to show evidence that he was both libeled, and financially damaged by said libel. It seems highly unlikely that he will be able to show such financial damage. He has continued to be a darling of the environmental movement, probably receives honoraria for his many lectures, and in 2019 he was awarded the prestigious Tyler Prize for Environmental Achievement, which includes a $200,000 cash payment.

Reply to  Thomas
June 24, 2020 9:26 am

Actually, Mann’s discovery requests were very over burdensome. But they seem to have been mostly denied.

https://www.steynonline.com/documents/10178.pdf

Therefore, it seems quite likely that Mr. Rotters statement was correct. Mann will be responsible for the majority of legal costs for discovery.

The order given at the above link is well worth reading.

Here are some nice quotes,

“The science behind global warming is not the plaintiff here and certainly cannot be defamed. Plaintiff cannot equate himself to the science of global warming. Defendant has no obligation to investigate the science behind global warming, and the failure to investigate the science does not result in any liability to Defendant.”

“Defendant is a writer, not a scientist. Likewise, Plaintiff [Mann] is a scientist with his research focus on global warming, not *the* scientist representing the entirety of the science behind global warming.” I added the asterisks to show that “the” was italicized in the original.

Mann is so egotistical that he equates himself with the science of global warming.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Thomas
June 24, 2020 4:57 pm

Here is the award taken directly from the ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE’S AND RAND SIMBERG’S MOTION FOR PAYMENT OF EXPENSES

“ORDERED that Defendants are awarded the expenses in connection with the motion to compel discovery in the amount of 9588.64.”

pouncer
Reply to  Steven Mosher
June 24, 2020 11:21 am

Mosh: Defendants asked for discovery: Give us your documents Mann.! since 2005
Mann said NO. I dont have to. Defendants did a Motion to compel. (please judge force him to produce the documents) Mann lost and so must pay for the cost of the motion to compel.

It seems this particular little skirmish in the war is on the hill of reputational damages. Mann sued saying he was defamed AND injured. CEI et all say, (apart from the question of defamation) IF you were injured, show us measurements and calculations showing the extent of your injury. Very similar to the hockey stick… show us what your earnings and rate of increase in earnings, fame, prestige etc were prior to the alleged defamation, and show how the trend has inflected after said defamation. Mann didn’t want to provide the data or the model. He is, however, demonstrating remarkable consistency.

Patrick B
Reply to  Steven Mosher
June 24, 2020 11:57 am

I would like to simply note this is the first time I recall fully supporting everything Nick Stokes and Steve Mosher are saying. They are correct.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Patrick B
June 24, 2020 3:27 pm

Yet note how carefully they avoided saying anything negative about Mann.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Patrick B
June 24, 2020 3:27 pm

Yes. I cannot understand how anyone who speaks English, whatever dialect, can come to any understanding other than that the order was to pay for the cost of the motion to compel and nothing else.

B d Clark
Reply to  Tom in Florida
June 24, 2020 3:40 pm

You cant understand because no one has disagreed on that point , the disagreement is about two awards were as stokes because he never read the judgement thinks there was only one award.

Reply to  Patrick B
June 25, 2020 10:51 pm

I hope Mann loses.

kim
Reply to  Patrick B
June 26, 2020 6:46 pm

Thank you for that my old comrade.You have a good and honesr heart and a thirst for righteousness.

You know we are cooling long term, for how long even kim doesn’t know, and that CO2 is plant food and that anthropogenic warming will be mild and net beneficial.
So here’s a great glass of brimming righteousness; min skol deen skol alla vackra skol and I raise this crystal especially for you.
Drink up.
————-
————-

kim
Reply to  Steven Mosher
June 24, 2020 5:51 pm

Moshe to the White Phone,
tale along your pen.
———
———

commieBob
Reply to  mikebartnz
June 24, 2020 5:17 am

1 – We need Nick to keep us honest. How can we check our knowledge and hone our arguments without someone to disagree with us?

2 – Nick is often factually correct.

B d Clark
Reply to  commieBob
June 24, 2020 5:21 am

Not in this case, you know hes wrong he specifically stated only litigation costs that’s wrong the judgment states two different sets of costs = litigation, lawyers costs ,

B d Clark
Reply to  commieBob
June 24, 2020 5:28 am

Do you know what a litigator is , it does not appear so, littigation is a lawyer or litigator who conducts arguments mainly in court on behalf of a client, civil,

The case has to get to court with a different set of lawyers solicitors doing the donkey work,

That’s why the court ruling gives costs for two distinct processes.

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  B d Clark
June 24, 2020 5:06 pm

Uh, we don’t have advocates and solicitors in the US – we have lawyers. Some lawyers are really good at litigation, many try to stay out of court at all costs (the best solution, usually). So, on any given day, a lawyer may be involved in litigation, and, on another day, that same lawyer may not be involved in litigation.

I know that this is confusing to people in other parts of the world, where there are 2 kinds of lawyer.

B d Clark
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
June 25, 2020 4:32 am

Uh
Your not quite right are you old boy,

“U.S. usage: both solicitors and barristers are in U.S. English called attorneys( with attorney at law occassionally seen, synonymously) or lawyers. … No distinction for solicitor vs. barrister as all may practice in court or out of court.”

Attorney or lawyer, or solicitor ,you just simplify into lawyers.

Reply to  commieBob
June 24, 2020 8:26 am

I like Nick, he’s a gentleman, but he is sometimes wrong.

kim
Reply to  Thomas
June 24, 2020 5:48 pm

Horse Facies,
Stewball romps home.
————-
————-

Joel Snider
Reply to  commieBob
June 24, 2020 8:47 am

‘Nick is often factually correct.’

Yeah – so’s Lucifer – doesn’t make him honest.

Orson
Reply to  commieBob
June 24, 2020 11:26 am

My summary of the foregoing, joining “CommieBodd’s” pith: We see tedium here (sigh!). But illumination might be just around the corner – hallelujah!

kim
Reply to  Orson
June 24, 2020 5:46 pm

Look under the streetlamp.
————-
————

Javert Chip
Reply to  commieBob
June 24, 2020 8:41 pm

It’s absolutely hilarious to watch a bunch of non-lawyers attempting to impress each other with legal conclusions & opinions based upon their absolutely non-existent legal skills.

As a (now retired & non-lawyer) CFO, I QUICKLY learned & respected the boundary-line between my area of competency and the legal realm.

Unqualified commenters in this thread would be well advised to simply wait until a real lawyer shows up & provides accurate interpretation of the court’s action; commenters could then certainly ask questions of that qualified individual.

In the mean time, this thread reads like a bunch of 3rd-graders beating each other up over the subtlties of partial differential equations.

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  Javert Chip
June 29, 2020 4:59 pm

And without a copy of Kamke.

Richard (the cynical one)
Reply to  commieBob
June 24, 2020 10:15 pm

Yes, there is a place for the devil’s advocate.

commieBob
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 24, 2020 2:26 am

Here’s what Steyn says:

And so the District of Columbia Superior Court has ordered Mann to write CEI/Simberg a check for $9,588.64.

In the final paragraph of his objection to paying costs, Mann requests that all these questions of who gets what costs should be deferred until the end of the case, because it would better “serve judicial economy” – and, of course, also make it easier for Mann to evade collection, as he’s doing with the British Columbia verdict. For that or other reasons, Judge Anderson seems minded to impose a pay-as-you-go regime on Mann, so one assumes he’ll be getting out the checkbook within thirty days or so. link

You seem to be right that the actual decision is to award costs of less than $10,000 just to cover one small part of the proceedings.

On the other hand, Steyn seems to think that the judge could be ordering more such payments on a pay-as-you-go basis. We’ll see.

Elsewhere in his article, Steyn opined that awarding costs, as was done here, is rare in American cases. If true, that’s significant and does not bode well for Mann.

As far as I can tell, Steyn has been mostly losing so far and his counterclaim has been quashed. link I think that means Mann can avoid sworn testimony by continuing to drag things out and then dropping the suit. On the other hand, that strategy could start to become expensive for him.

I have advanced the theory that, because of adverse inference arising from the Ball case, Mann has basically admitted that he has committed fraud. So far, no actual lawyers have told me I’m wrong.

This rule applies not only to evidence destroyed but also to evidence existing but not produced by the party as well as to evidence under a party’s control but not produced. See Notice to produce. The adverse inference is based upon the presumption that the party who controls the evidence would have produced it, if it had been supportive.

rbabcock
Reply to  commieBob
June 24, 2020 5:36 am

I think Mann sees the writing on the wall in this case so the tactic is drag it out until the other party gets exhausted or normally is the case, runs out of money. Going to a pay as you go lawsuit will bring this to a conclusion much faster as Mann’s tactics will end up costing him the money. The judge also knows how to play the game.

commieBob
Reply to  rbabcock
June 24, 2020 6:55 am

Prediction is dangerous, especially about the future. Yogi Bear

Mann, in the manner of all bullies, will claim to be a victim. He will claim that he can’t afford the onerous legal bills slapped on him by an alt right judge who was appointed by Donald Trump, the enemy of the people. He will drop the suit in a huff. His fanboyz will howl at the moon for weeks and months.

rbabcock
Reply to  commieBob
June 24, 2020 8:35 am

Maybe but it all is a game, isn’t it?

Reply to  commieBob
June 24, 2020 8:31 am

CommieBob, I agree. Mann’s refusal to produce his work, is strong evidence that he committed scientific fraud.

ltdroid
Reply to  commieBob
June 24, 2020 10:46 am

I’ve not seen much commentary on what sounds like, to my non- law educated mind, a pretty big deal; Steyn’s countersuit being dismissed with prejudice. Any lawyers reading this out there that can tell me if, because of this ruling, Steyn will, or will not, have opportunity to seek damages against Mann in the future?

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  ltdroid
June 24, 2020 8:30 pm

The dismissal was predicated by the opinion that the suit had a good chance of succeeding – i.e. that Mann was defamed.

When the suit fails by judgment, a counterclaim can be made for sure. If it fails by withdrawal the counterclaim is a maybe.

I don’t see Mann ever pitching up the data needed to create his hockey stick. History will have to reply on the careful, even meticulous, replication of the result using available data sets and calculations by McIntyre and McKitrick. We know it is right because it put the Fear of God into the whole Team. They are still stinging from the effects of that paper.

Steyn’s book “Disgrace to the Profession” is also not to be overlooked in historical perspective. It seems intended to ensure the long term legacy is infamy and, taken together with M&M’s papers, provides a well documented example of how corrupt and incompetent climate science was in the early 21st century as the pillars of science cracked and crumbled and fell into a materialist abyss.

Mann can still do the right thing and bring down this whole house of climate cards by exposing, honestly, what has been going on. He if did, it would save millions of lives – those people who will suffer the consequences of mis-spent trillions. Always have hope that people can reform.

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
June 25, 2020 11:18 pm

The data has all been posted.
some of the results the R^2 were not.
data: all posted
ancillary statistical results, withheld

B d Clark
June 23, 2020 11:55 pm

“The Court finds it
reasonable to award Defendants 75% of its attorneys’ fees and all of its costs incurred in litigating
the Motion to Compel Discovery. The Court further finds that the fees, as charged, are reasonable.”

Michael Mann has lost a motion in the DC Superior Court.

June 24, 2020 12:05 am

It is a rare joy to see severe financial pain being inflicted upon someone who richly deserves it.

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  nicholas tesdorf
June 24, 2020 12:16 am

👏😎

June 24, 2020 12:15 am

Let’s hope that the money tree, that Mann and his CAGW religion co-conspirators believe exists to pay for our inflated power bills, will produce a poor crop this year! Penury would seem to be an apt penalty for this false prophet!

Chaswarnertoo
June 24, 2020 12:15 am

Oh dear, ‘ ow sad, never mind.

saveenergy
Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
June 24, 2020 2:01 am

Rod Evans
June 24, 2020 12:19 am

Maybe Mann is realising an uncomfortable feature of public life, when you were once at the at the top, it is impossible to “hide the decline”……

Another Ian
Reply to  Rod Evans
June 24, 2020 2:10 am

As the political saying here has it –

“Today a rooster. Tomorrow a feather duster”

ianl
June 24, 2020 12:20 am

Yes, yes – but where does this leave any actual *discovery* ?

That piece of final honesty is what we really want.

Dodgy Geezer
Reply to  ianl
June 24, 2020 3:27 am

Actually, now is a good time to collapse his case. The MSM are now so tightly bound to political correctness that they will simply not print anything which might bing climate change into disrepute….

ianl
Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
June 24, 2020 4:01 pm

> “… now is a good time to collapse his case …”

Yes, that is exactly what I think Mann will now do. As he did in the Canadian case that he lost. Simply fold, accept the $$$ loss and avoid any discovery.

The JCU in the Peter Ridd case as well has followed that tactic to date. The initial Federal Court judge directly requested that JCU supply hard detail of their quality assurance procedures. The JCU barrister (obviously on directions from his client) simply ignored this request completely – no discovery allowed.

June 24, 2020 12:22 am

Understand the mind ofa Lib. Its all $$’s.
That ruling put this lawfare by Mann on life-support. Mann would unplug his own Mother himself from a respirator if he thought she might harm financially with health bills. Now that this discovery is on his dime, same thing.

Robert Austin
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
June 24, 2020 11:00 am

The question is whether or not it “is on his dime”. Ten grand is substantial to an average wage earner but is pocket change if Mann’s legal fees are funded by some deep pocketed advocacy group.

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  Robert Austin
June 29, 2020 6:27 pm

It appears to me that Mann has lost this little battle. He has yet to win the war, and there are more opportunities for him to lose.

kim
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
June 24, 2020 5:44 pm

Lawfare rawfare
Not from Mawfare.
————-
————-

yarpos
June 24, 2020 12:24 am

meh, I hope you are right but he will probably be funded by the green blob directly or a herd of useful idiots on go fund me or equivalent.

Davo
June 24, 2020 12:27 am

Could not happen to a nicer bloke.

ThinkingScientist
June 24, 2020 12:27 am

If Mark Steyn ever gets Mann in the witness box, I think Mann will get eviscerated. One step closer.

David Yaussy
Reply to  ThinkingScientist
June 24, 2020 9:19 am

I would pay to watch Steyn cross Mann

Henry Pool
Reply to  David Yaussy
June 24, 2020 10:27 am

Steyn is not a lawyer, so you’ll never see him cross examine anyone.

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
Reply to  Henry Pool
June 24, 2020 12:55 pm

Correct. And it’s much more fun to read Steyn skewering people like Mann in print anyway.

kim
Reply to  Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
June 24, 2020 5:41 pm

You betcha cha chat.
—————-
—————-

jtom
Reply to  Henry Pool
June 25, 2020 1:49 pm

Steyn is a party in the case. In the US, he has the absolute, constitutionally protected right to face his accuser. He certainly can cross-examine Mann should he deign to do so.

June 24, 2020 12:40 am

Mann’s big problem:
“A Disgrace to the Profession” Kindle Edition
by Mark Steyn (Author, Editor), Josh (Illustrator)
https://www.amazon.com/Disgrace-Profession-Mark-Steyn-ebook/dp/B013TZFRGE/ref=sr_1_2?dchild=1&keywords=a+disgrace+to+his+professional&qid=1585998641&sr=8-2

Andrew B
June 24, 2020 1:22 am

How does this judgement effect the costs awarded to Dr Tim Ball

Mr.
Reply to  Andrew B
June 24, 2020 9:26 am

Different legal jurisdiction – BC Canada.

commieBob
Reply to  Andrew B
June 25, 2020 8:58 am

Unless Mann sets foot in Canada, he can avoid paying. I have a hunch that his blunt refusal to pay what the court has ordered will bite him in the a$$ in another venue.

There are various laws that punish people who misuse the courts, vexatious litigation is an example. Mann’s refusal to pay in BC is a piece of evidence that could be used in another court.

Sid
June 24, 2020 1:24 am

I think you have it all wrong. Mann is by far the highest profile to the public. He will crowd fund against us bad folk

John Endicott
Reply to  Sid
June 24, 2020 2:32 am

crowd funding gets money from people. His crowd doesn’t fund. They’ll parrot what he has to say, but generally they don’t actually put their money where their mouths are vis-à-vis crowd funding. (It’s like the companies that pander to the woke crowd, the woke crowd aren’t their paying customers and aren’t going to support your company just because you said what they want to hear, so the companies aren’t going to gain any sales by pandering, but will lose sales from the non-woke. hence the phrase “get woke, go broke”)He will, however, get plenty of money from the green blob (IE various green organization).

DMacKenzie
Reply to  John Endicott
June 24, 2020 6:59 am

JE,
Huh? Enviro “Donate” Buttons are what makes the enviro-agitator world go ‘round….These orgs are constantly on the lookout for the next scare video topic that will cost them far less to make than the resulting donations…..

John Endicott
Reply to  DMacKenzie
June 25, 2020 8:07 am

“Donate” and “Crowd fund” are two completely different things. Those orgs get lots of donations (mainly from big players like Soros). Crowd funding (Indegogo, GoFundMe, etc) is a different kettle of fish. Like I said those orgs may use their donations to help Mann out, but crowdfunding? Not gonna pull in the big bucks for Mann, because the type of people that back Mann aren’t the time that are willing to directly fund him – that’s for other peoples money.

For a non-climate example of the difference in crowd funding between the woke (who don’t put their own money on the line) and non-woke (who do), over in the world of comic books look to Waid vs Meyers. Trying to make a long story short: Meyers is a youtuber critical of SJW “professional” comic creators/gate keepers, Waid is a professional comic creator and something of a big name in the field of comics (best known for Kingdom come and his runs on Captain American and Flash) (Think Mann in terms of ego and notoriety). Waid interfered with a contract Meyers had with a publisher to publish and distribute his own comic book effort. Meyers ended up suing Waid over that. GoFundMe campaigns were set up for Meyers and then Waid. Just about every comic fan knows who Waid is, only a niche of comics fans who follow certain social media (youtube & twitter) accounts know who Meyers is. And yet Meyers GoFundMe quickly pulled in a lot of money (exceeding it’s funding goals in a short amount of time). As for Waid’s: while a few of his fellow comic publishers chipped in a pitiful handful of dollars, it did not pull anywhere close to what Meyers GoFundMe did (I don’t think it ever did reach it’s funding goal), and it took a heck of a lot longer just to pull what money it did.

On the climate side, look at the appeals we’ve seen here on WUWT, Peter Ridd for one example, skeptics are willing to open their wallets to help a good cause. Can you name one example of alarmists doing something similar? alarmist don’t open their own wallets they look to take the money from everyone else’s wallet.

Ozonebust
Reply to  Sid
June 24, 2020 3:00 am

All point men are easily replaced

kim
Reply to  Ozonebust
June 24, 2020 5:36 pm

Hockey Stick, Hockey Stick on the wall,
Kissed the girls and made them cry.
——————
——————

kim
Reply to  Sid
June 24, 2020 5:39 pm

The Madness of the Crowd.
——————-
——————-

Coeur de Lion
June 24, 2020 1:36 am

I must track Mark’s website. Perhaps the BBC will help fund Mann having insulted their licence fee payers by parading Mann in their recent TV programme ‘Climate Change – The Facts’ in which whispery Attenborough also caught a cold from the heavyweight complainers, viz GWPF etc,

Alexander Vissers
June 24, 2020 1:38 am

Rule of law in action. Got to love it. Will not hurt him though as he has plenty of fans willing to cover.

Boff Doff
June 24, 2020 2:15 am

There is a long queue of Renewable Energy Industry lobbyists happy to pay the dishonest Mann’s legal bills. It is the least they can do. He has made them rich.

kim
Reply to  Boff Doff
June 24, 2020 5:16 pm

The Piltdown Mann.
——————————-
——————————-

Nick Graves
June 24, 2020 2:52 am

Has he coughed up to Dr Tim Ball yet?

Schadenfreude is such a reprehensible emotion, yet I’ll forgive myself once again.

kim
Reply to  Nick Graves
June 24, 2020 5:33 pm

I’ve sworn over and over to aboid the schadenfreude,
Ant yet they pull me back in.
————-
————-

June 24, 2020 2:55 am

Poor guy!
Btw, of late he has turned into an Anthropocene salesman. That’s his thing now. Not hockey sticks.

https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/03/30/the-humans-must-save-the-planet/

Dodgy Geezer
June 24, 2020 3:21 am

“Michael Mann has lost a motion in the DC Superior Court. He will now be responsible for the majority of legal costs for discovery in his perpetual libel suits against Steyn and the National Review.”

The Green Blob and its shadowy backers will now be responsible for the majority of legal costs for discovery in his perpetual libel suits against Steyn and the National Review.

There. Fixed that for you….

Harry Davidson
June 24, 2020 3:22 am

This case highlights one aspect of legal practice where I think UK legal procedure is superior to the US. In the UK, if you bring an action that is without merit, annoy the judge with your game playing, waste the Court’s time, the Judge can and will find ways to punish you. They will not only make you pay *all* the defendant’s costs, including the defendant’s wasted time charged at full whack, but also post things in their remarks that can be read out in any subsequent litigation that you are a chancer, they can and will increase your costs and the defence costs (that you are going to pay) by managing the case to economize on Court time and increase legal costs. Using “the process as punishment” in the UK is not a good route, it can be very, very expensive, and quite rewarding for the defendant.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Harry Davidson
June 24, 2020 6:08 am

Even so, proving a defamation lawsuit in the US remains extremely hard; the biggest barrier is the requirement to quantify and prove damages. Also judges have the latitude to tailor jury instructions (if a case gets this far) in ways that make it impossible for a jury to award damages, or even return a guilty verdict.

But your point remains, they are essentially economic warfare.

Gerry, England
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
June 24, 2020 10:23 am

The same as JCU vs Dr Ridd. Given that the judge completely trashed the JCU finding against them 17 points, you might think an appeal a waste of time and money. But when you can spend taxpayers’ money – which is intended to fund education although using that word with JCU is stretching it – to go to appeal in the full knowledge that Dr Ridd is mainly using crowd-funding to fight for academic free speech. I find it sad that we have nobody on our side to match the leftie funders like Steyer, Rockerfeller, Clinton etc that could have helped Dr Ridd.

Harry Davidson
Reply to  Gerry, England
June 24, 2020 12:38 pm

The Aussie legal system is very similar to the UK. I can’t see the Appeal Judges being remotely impressed, unless JCU really have thought up something of legal substance. The JCU apparatchiks might get hurt with this, there are a lot of things the Court can do to them.

Harry Davidson
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
June 24, 2020 12:42 pm

In the UK, any form of Libel is extremely hard to defend. The defence of truth carries with it the highest burden of proof required anywhere in our legal calendar, far tougher than proving murder. It is very difficult defence to use and very dangerous. It shouldn’t be like that, but it is.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Harry Davidson
June 24, 2020 3:36 pm

For the US, the standard for torts (civil litigation) is supposed to be a “preponderance” of the evidence, which is not as high the “reasonable doubt” standard for criminal convictions.

Joseph Zorzin
June 24, 2020 3:58 am

Looking at some of my recent Scientific American magazines I came across an article by Mann from the March, 2020 issue: “The Weather Amplifier- Strange waves in the jet stream foretell a future full of heat waves and floods”. No mention anywhere that Mann is a controversial figure. I then did a search on Mann on the magazine’s web page and notice there is mention of Mann’s controversies in previous issues.

“Strange waves foretell…..” Doesn’t sound convincing.

Rick K
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
June 24, 2020 6:16 am

Strange waves, indeed.

matt
Reply to  Rick K
June 25, 2020 9:07 am

Most peculiar mama, whoa!

RobR
June 24, 2020 4:30 am

Oh Mann, that’s gotta hurt!

Coach Springer
June 24, 2020 5:53 am

The process is still the punishment. And Mann himself isn’t paying anything anyway. And on and on we go.

I mentioned that Mann had no intention of every complying with discovery or getting in court in one of Steyn’s comment forums, which he acknowledged. He’s playing the long game and he’s paying millions to do it.

B d Clark
June 24, 2020 5:57 am

There seems to be a few who dont get what the costs awarded in this case are,

Litigation is conducted by a specialist lawyer,solicitor, or in the UK a barrister,

The work for these civil cases is conducted by a lawyer,solicitor, who prepair the case, they will instruct a littigator on behalf of the plaintiff if the case warrants it, particularly if it’s a complicated case, the acting littigator will also instruct the solicitor acting for the plaintiff for more evidence ,photos witnesses, ect.

The littigator is the one who presents the case in court, argues the case.

This is why the ruling in mann’s case ,the judge awarded to sets of costs the lawyers fees (75%) and the littigation fees .it is common practice for courts to award fees with a distinction between the two parties acting for the plaintiff, or the defender. Or a mixture of both,or no fees awarded at all, both parties bear their own costs whatever the outcome.

Just Jenn
June 24, 2020 6:20 am

Mann is going to find out pretty quickly that his blustering and posturing is not going to do him any good in today’s cancel culture.

People are tired of being lied to and manipulated by an “influencer” and that doesn’t just mean on social media. Continually spouting half truths, omissions, outright lies, and gaslighting the public about something while taking in money has a way of pi$$ing people off and they now have a bigger voice than they ever did before.

I can’t wait for the fun to start actually! Have a whole bag of popcorn dedicated to the coming attraction.

Imagine historians looking back 100 years from now and teaching students about the time. They’ll need to come up with a name….I really hope it’s something like the “Iceists, Ice-ers, Ice Clan, or Ice Cult”.

kim
Reply to  Just Jenn
June 24, 2020 5:22 pm

Judy came up with Cool Dudes.
—————-
—————-

Alex
June 24, 2020 7:35 am

Perhaps Mann’s expenses will be covered by the National Academy of Science…

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/04/30/mann-elected-to-national-academy-of-sciences/

beng135
June 24, 2020 8:13 am

Don’t feel for Mann — any costs to him will be taken care of by the marxist community, as long as he keeps running his mouth, saying the right things.

Kevin A
June 24, 2020 8:21 am

@Jenn “Have a whole bag of popcorn” try two 24 packs or 7 pounds of popcorn, at the Mann rate you could still run out.

Just Jenn
Reply to  Kevin A
June 25, 2020 4:24 am

LOL! True.

Better not waste it throwing it at the screen.

J Mac
June 24, 2020 9:11 am

It isn’t nearly enough, from my perspective. I loathe and despise the ‘cheat and retreat’ maneuvers Mann employs to financially bankrupt those he has deliberately abused.

David Yaussy
June 24, 2020 9:20 am

I would pay to watch Steyn cross Mann

Richard Saumarez
June 24, 2020 10:30 am

Litigation is a luxury and litigants generally find it is an expensive luxury.

Steve Borodin
June 24, 2020 10:41 am

So, the IPCC has been employing the author of this (alleged) fraud in a very influential position for what, 15 years. Presumably it would be very inconvenient to employ an honest scientist, who might say things they don’t want to hear.

It is at least good news to hear that the DC courts have not rusted up entirely.

M__ S__
June 24, 2020 10:51 am

Good. Now run the bills up

Richard from Brooklyn (south)
June 24, 2020 1:38 pm

In our Jurisdiction, if a client requires their lawyers not to disclose even one relevant document, the lawyers must explain to the client why this is wrong and the possible consequences. If the client insists, the lawyers must then advise the client that the lawyers can not continue to act. If the lawyers continue to act on these instructions, they are in breach of their ethical (rules of conduct) obligations and will be subject to a lawyers’ disciplinary process.
I teach civil litigation and this scenario is one of the ethical exercises (and every student gets it right).
Different ethical rules clearly apply in the jurisdiction Mr Mann is currently operating in.
However, as other posters have noted, this is an effective ruling (judgement?) by the court and may clip Mr Mann’s wings.

B d Clark
Reply to  Richard from Brooklyn (south)
June 24, 2020 1:43 pm

In the UK a solicitor, lawyer, barrister, are officers of the court,first and foremost, thier job is to uphold as in this case the civil procedure rules. If they knowingly mislead the court then there barred.

LdB
Reply to  B d Clark
June 25, 2020 9:03 am

There would be no lawyers left if they really followed that. Tom below states the other rule they must follow in most countries. The key word they use to reconcile the two rules is “knowingly” … if you don’t explicitly tell them and they definitely won’t ask if they fear the answer.

B d Clark
Reply to  LdB
June 25, 2020 11:19 am

That’s why I said knowingly,

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Richard from Brooklyn (south)
June 24, 2020 3:10 pm

Richard, then you know that a lawyer has a fiduciary responsibility as an agent for the client to obey the client’s orders. If they cannot do so ethically or legally then they must end the relationship and take those orders to the grave.

Writing Observer
Reply to  Richard from Brooklyn (south)
June 24, 2020 9:40 pm

So far as I have followed the case (which isn’t all that much, only so many hours in my day) – the fights have been more over 1) whether the subject of the discovery is relevant – see the document linked above, where Mann’s discovery demands were denied as irrelevant to the case; 2) whether the other party has the authority to disclose – a favorite tactic of Mann, declaring information to be “proprietary” to his employer(s); 3) whether the demand is intended only to run up the legal bills of the opponent to produce documents that are publicly available.

If any of those theories apply (or seem to, from what the lawyer is being told), it is proper to advise the client to not disclose until and unless a motion on the matter is denied by the Court.

June 24, 2020 4:12 pm

I believe a Left Wing law firm did the case pro bono for Mann….maybe some Soros money paid for it….the Left uses the Courts to wage a guerilla war against their opponents….eat up their time….make them poorer….make them think twice about opposing Lefties…make them an example.

Jack Hays
June 24, 2020 4:15 pm

I’m confused on this issue.

How can I spin this on political message boards to make it look like Steyn is the big winner here?

I really get beat up in these debates, so I need some ammo.

kim
Reply to  Jack Hays
June 24, 2020 5:28 pm

Run Run the Gingerbread Mann.
————-
————-

Phil.
Reply to  Jack Hays
June 24, 2020 6:07 pm

Not sure that Steyn’s a big winner, he’s already lost motions:
“Counter-Defendant Michael E. Mann (“Mann”) moves the Court to dismiss the Counterclaims with prejudice pursuant to pursuant to D.C. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 12(b)(6) and award Mann attorneys’ fee incurred in filing this motion.”
The result was a win for Mann:
“Steyn’s special motion to dismiss and Rule 12(b)(6) motion were denied on the grounds that a reasonable jury is likely to find in favor of Mann in his defamation lawsuit, Mann’s lawsuit against Steyn is far from frivolous or groundless.
Accordingly, it is hereby this 29th day of August 2019, hereby
ORDERED that Counter-plaintiff MarkSteyn’s counterclaims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”

So presumably Mann got his attorney’s fee associated with this.
Also note what the judge said: Steyn’s motions were denied on the grounds that a reasonable jury is likely to find in favor of Mann in his defamation lawsuit, that doesn’t look good for Steyn.

kim
Reply to  Phil.
June 25, 2020 7:17 am

Reasonable jury is the wild card here.
Where do you find that in this day of full court alarmist press?
I rely on the Friends of theCourt contributions from what remains of ethical urges from the press.
My how the need for the press to protect themselves must torment the demented activists among them.
—————————
—————————

opus
Reply to  Jack Hays
June 24, 2020 7:48 pm

Troll score=D-….buzz off, Jack.

kim
June 24, 2020 5:26 pm

The false illusion is in the straight shaft of ‘The Crook’t Stick’.
————-
————-

tygrus
June 24, 2020 5:48 pm

No biggie.
Mann to pay more for pre-trial discovery. This is separate to total legal costs of the full legal battle which may continue.
During pre-trial both parties can request evidence (eg. copies of documents or data) from the other. To reduce vexatious litigation the majority of the costs pre-trial can be charged to the plaintiff to pay the defendant. I’m assuming they take several factors into account like:
* which side makes the most onerous requests for documents/data;
* who started the fight;
* likelihood of legal success; and
* capacity to pay.
Laws vary greatly between countries and jurisdictions, if you need legal advice, ask a local lawyer.

…Watch this space…

June 24, 2020 7:23 pm

Legal verdicts and judgements are one thing that climate scientists can’t fake.

Quilter
June 25, 2020 12:35 am

I don’t wish to get into any of the arguments about the current position and who pays what. What I do want to know is why a Court can take this long to allow someone to obfuscate and refuse to provide information to support a case that he has brought against another party. If he thinks he has been wronged, he should be able to rapidly provide the information to support his case. if he cannot support his case then it is meretricious. The Court should tell him to provide his information forthwith. If he cannot it should dismiss the case with costs against Mann or even charge him with contempt of court. The court system is there for the provision of justice, not to nursemaid egos and it should not continue to delay decisions because a party cannot or will not produce their evidence. This is not a short period of time. It is already many years. Surely justice delayed is justice denied. Mann should put up or be shut up.

Reply to  Quilter
June 25, 2020 12:52 am

Almost all the time has been taken up by defence appeals.

kim
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 25, 2020 6:10 am

The beaver dam turning this into a morass is the edifice fabricated bu the invasive species of tree borers and science warpers figureheaded by The Piltdown Mann and nourished by the activist propagandists and all the money and power backing them.
Our local commissars are nick and my dear old friend moshe, shamed though he be now.
——————
——————

kim
Reply to  kim
June 25, 2020 6:30 am

Moshe reveals himself as cranky and intolerant but still an often reliable guide.
Stokes honors his ancestor’s name but his zeal embarasses his search for truth and meaning.
I prefer to believe the both of them are primarily motivated by fear, alarmed but fundamentally well meaning hearts.
Relax the two of ya; anthropogenic warming is mild and net beneficial; the greening by serendipitous anthropogenic CO2 would be miraculous if not so well understood, truly a cornucopia.

Capiche? I’m so glad. There will be further tests.
————-
————-

kim
Reply to  kim
June 25, 2020 6:37 am

No need for fear, no reason for guilt.
This whole affair is a social tragedy, polity misled by science to the lasting detriment of all of us and all of our progeny.
That’s on the tests, hint, hint.
—————-
—————-

tsk tsk
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 26, 2020 8:18 am

Almost all the time has been taken up with a lack of rulings from the court and a failure of Mann to provide discovery.

Steynd has asked for expedited rulings. Mann has not and has actively delayed the process as shown by the very ruling this piece is about.

June 25, 2020 2:25 pm

“Michael Mann has lost a motion …”
Humm, a good dose of senna would cure that!

🙂

Roguewave1
June 28, 2020 7:42 am

In science’ previous most egregious fraud, the Piltdown Man, the deception could and was ferreted out by physical observation from the cobbling together of bones of disparate creatures many years after the fraud was perpetrated. The definitive disclosure of this fraud, the Hockey Stick graph, which equals or exceeds the Piltdown Man hokum by cobbling together the data bones of disparate studies, relies upon disclosure of concealed data, which I suspect Michael “Piltdown” Mann will never expose to close scrutiny even as he was ordered by the judge in no uncertain terms.

In my trial practice of 4 decades, I never had an opposing party flagrantly stiff a judge’s order of discovery with no satisfactory explanation and see the party’s position survive. With this judge’s (and preceding judges’ ones) record in the suit, it is hard to tell what she would do in such case, but even this order is surprising to me.

kim
Reply to  Roguewave1
June 28, 2020 10:09 pm

‘cobbling together the data bones of disparate studies’, I like that a lot.

The Piltdown Mann cobbled on his devious lathe a shoe crippling the bones of all fleet mankind’s feet whatever disparate colors they be.

This kind of science is destructive, serviceable as it is to the false narratives needed by authoritarians to gain power. It is unsustainable, simply so.
——————
——————

%d bloggers like this: