Mark Steyn has an update on his court case:
On Saturday, I noted that Mann had yet to join me in filing an objection to National Review’s Motion to Stay Discovery. He did so today:
Defendant Mark Steyn opted not to appeal the denial of the motions to dismiss the amended complaint. Rather, Mr. Steyn has filed an answer and counterclaims and has expressed his intention to move forward with discovery, regardless of the fact that his co-defendants have opted to appeal.
Indeed, I have. So what’s Dr Mann’s position? Well, it’s a two-part response.
On the one hand, he’s in favor of his proceeding with discovery against me:
The fact that Mr. Steyn has not appealed the denial of the motions to dismiss counsels further against a discovery stay. Mr. Steyn, like Dr. Mann, has made clear his desire to have this Court resolve this lawsuit and to move forward with discovery immediately. As such, there is no reason for this Court to delay discovery further.
On the other hand, he’s totally opposed to my proceeding with discovery against him:
While Dr. Mann agrees with Mr. Steyn that discovery should move forward on Dr. Mann’s claims, discovery cannot move forward on Mr. Steyn’s counterclaims.
Oh, my. You do surprise me.
I am shocked, too, of course.
Way back we didn’t think he’d go to discovery. Get more popcorn.
Wait a second, though.
It appears Mann does not want discovery with regard to Steyn’s counter-suit.
Do we infer, then, the Mann is okay with Steyn making discovery requests with regard to MANN’S ORIGINAL suit?
It’s simplier than that. Mann is all for the discovery process looking at Steyn. As for discovery looking at Mann’s stuff, he isn’t such a fan. Imagine that.
Granted, discovery isn’t infinite, it’s always subject to “Relevance” and “Materiality”.
I doubt Rand or Steyn will be likely to get discovery on Mann’s medical records
or auto repair records, but i can reasonably see Steyn or Rand being able to
subpoena records related to Dr Manns data, or analysis.
As Rand accused him ‘molesting’ the data, and academic misconduct, it would seem
within bounds to subpoena lab notes, data records, reduction programs, etc.
However, Much of that may be filed under a protective order as it is “intellectual property”
and it may mean only people under confidentiality agreement can root around in it.
Publicly-funded research at a public university that is protected as private Intellectual Property is a problem unto itself. If discovery in this case is blocked by IP considerations, then it would be a good opportunity to re-open the discussions about what “public” funds truly are, and to whom such research should belong.
In fact, that very topic is at the heart of the debate surrounding UVa’s denial of media FOIA requests for Mann’s e-mails. I would imagine the outcome of that FOIA fight would provide the basis for any IP-related claims for/against discovery in this matter (but, then again, logic doesn’t always dictate action in courts of law).
depends, but it’s likely “Competitive” data.
Given how competitive science is, the call here is
if the methods or data is ‘competitive’.
If data is “competitive,” it’s not scientific. Science is about replication, which can’t happen if data isn’t shared.
I’m thinking that Mann’s original complaint argued that Steyn (and others, of course), in the language of the law, “knew or should have known” that multiple Sandusky-like investigations had exonerated Mann of any misconduct. The alleged defamation arose because Steyn (among others) said the investigations were inadequate and the conduct of Mann was itself somewhat Sandusky-like. So, it seems valid for Steyn ( if NOT others, at this point in time) to request more details about the investigation. “May I have copies of any correspondence between Dr Mann and the investigators at Penn — not Mann’s replies, even, which might be private, but copies of what questions the authorities asked him. Ditto for the 8 or so other bodies Mann introduced in his complaint as investigators. Show me what they asked.
If in fact no record exists that any investigators ever contacted the person being ‘exonerated’ or that the questions asked were impertinent — “how much grant money did you bring into our institution this past decade, sir?’ then Steyn’s defense is entitled to know, right? On the other hand if Steyn is supposed to have known about the investigations, it follows that some news media somewhere should have direct quotes from these processes. Right?
In the case of Penn State, Mann was in fact the only person contacted by the “investigators.” My sense is that the conversation was, “Hey Mike, did you do anything wrong?” “Nope.” “Okey dokey.” Exoneration!
But Mann’s filing states that 8 or so other bodies also investigated and also cleared Mann. And he claims you supposedly knew that when you criticized the Penn inquiry. THEREFORE, Mann argues, only a malicious and/or reckless person would mention Penn or Sandusky. Steyn ditto.
Stipulating, for a nano-moment, that Mann did not intend to perpetrate a fraud upon the DC court system, it seems fair for a defendant to request more information, as possessed by the plaintiff, showing how those exonerating reviews were conducted. In Steyn’s circumstances, that request doesn’t seem to depend on your circumstances. Or CEI’s or NRO’s.
Fair is fair, right?