I can see no reason why a PLAINTIFF would oppose discovery, other than concern at what discovery might reveal.

Depends on the terms of the request, as I understand it, Mann's (or his lawyers) objections were that the discovery requirements were onerous beyond what was required to make a case, a fishing expedition if you will. Anyhoo.

I've done a bit more reading around, and it seems to me the majority of the delay is in fact caused by Steyn's various failed attempts to get the case either dismissed or amended, eg two Special Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to D.C. Anti-SLAPP Act (D.C. Code § 16-5501 et seq.) and Rule 12(b)(6), a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's July 19, 2013 Order denying his initial Motion to Dismiss. An Amended Answer and Counterclaims to the Amended Complaint, an Opposition to Motion to Dismiss the Counterclaims, etc, etc. And that just gets us to 2014; it wasn't until December 2016, more than 4 years after Mann first filed his complaint, that the legal objections thrown up by Steyn and his co-defendents were cleared and the DC Court of Appeals ruled that the case could proceed, and the defence appeals by no means ended there.

"...as I understand it, Mann's (or his lawyers) objections were that the discovery requirements were onerous beyond what was required to make a case, a fishing expedition if you will."

That may have been the argument of Mann and his lawyers, but the Judge obviously disagreed (at least in large part). It would have saved a lot of time and money if they had complied with the request in the first place.

"it wasn't until December 2016, more than 4 years after Mann first filed his complaint, that the legal objections thrown up by Steyn and his co-defendents were cleared and the DC Court of Appeals ruled that the case could proceed, and the defence appeals by no means ended there."

That was 3 and a half years ago. If Mann and his lawyers had wanted it, the case could have been at trial by now. It's clearly nowhere near trial. It's normal for the plaintiff to drive the case forward not to drag their feet; why is this case different?

And it's not just this case, is it? There's a theme developing here.

 Mark Steyn posted the blog item in dispute in July of 2012. Mann sued in October of that year, and we filed our first motion to dismiss in December of 2012.

When that was denied by the trial court, we filed a motion to reconsider. When that, too, was denied, we appealed to the D.C. Court of Appeals — twice. This brings us to 2014. After oral arguments, the Court of Appeals sat on the case for two years. Then, the court denied our appeal. This was in December of 2016. Because the opinion had myriad obvious flaws, we petitioned for a rehearing. Incredibly enough, the court then delayed for yet another two years. When the court finally issued an amended opinion, all it did was add one footnote and amend another.

Because the amended opinion didn’t fix any of the flaws of the original opinion, we petitioned for a rehearing yet again. This, too, was denied. Then, last May, we filed a cert petition before the U.S. Supreme Court. All indications are that the court seriously considered it, before denying the petition (with Justice Alito issuing a strong dissent).

Now, we are back in the trial court, with expensive and time-consuming discovery underway.

National Review

In other words, the majority of the elapsed time is down to the Court delays, sometimes stretching to years, in considering appeals or attempts to dismiss by Steyn and his co-defendents. Not sure you can blame Mann and his team for that.

"Not sure you can blame Mann and his team for that."
Jun 25, 2020 at 5:41 PM Phil Clarke

Between you and Mann there are legal advisers with a very poor track record. Does your biased opinion make you think there opinion is a safer bet than Mann's?

"Mann is evading a test .... - and trying to turn process into punishment.

Jun 25, 2020 at 11:22 PM tomo"

According to John Cook, 97% of Climate Scientists support Mann 100%. Why aren't they all clamouring for Mann to hurry things up and prove himself? Soon they will all know how much he has been earning while they have been paying money towards his Legal Costs which keep going up like a Hockey Stick blade, even though temperatures don't.

in this matter there is a pattern - Mann is intent on using process to try and intimidate.

Unsupported by real-world evidence, as ever. The long pauses have all occurred while the courts consider defence appeals or motions to dismiss. Read the court papers.

"Unsupported by real-world evidence, as ever.
Jun 26, 2020 at 12:23 AM Phil Clarke"

That sums up 97% of Climate Science

Phil

I freely admit I know little of the US civil legal system beyond the fact that it is common-law based, and roughly similar in procedural terms to the English system, though with many differences too.

What I would say is that in common law jurisdictions, where the Court dags its feet the aggrieved plaintiff/claimant (and mots normal claimants would be aggrieved by interminable Court delays) has the ability to push the Court to move things on. It appears that Mann and his team have not availed themselves of that opportunity, and have been quite happy with the delay, as well as delaying further by opposing what was ultimately a largely successful application by the defendants in respect of discovery.

I have seen no evidence (but feel free to scuttle off and look for it) that the delays in the Canadian case against Ball were caused by the Court rather than by Mann and the lawyers. Given that the Court struck his case out for unconscionable delay, such evidence as there is does point to delay by Mann, who never seems to be in a hurry for his cases to get anywhere near a trial.

I stand by my belief that the process is the punishment, that vindication at a trial is not the object of the exercise.

Quick thought experiment: let us imagine that the Mann-Steyn case finally goes before a jury and they determine that Steyn did not, in law, libel Dr Mann. While judge has said she finds 'a reasonable jury is likely to find in favor of Mann', you can never tell with a jury - a defeat is also plausible. Steyn will argue that Dr Mann is a public figure- which in the US means his lawyers have to prove the defendents 'acted with actual malice by knowing the falsity or by reckless disregard for the truth', a high bar.

So let us imagine the jury finds for Steyn et al. What happens next? Is it game over for AGW? Should we repeal the Climate Change Act and abandon our emission targets? (Spoiler alert: No and No;-).

I wonder how many of his paid lecturing duties and appearance fees depend on him flying, with the plane tickets paid by someone else and/or claimed as Tax Deductibles.

His name appears as co-author on so many papers. How does that work financially for the others?

So let us imagine the jury finds for Steyn et al. What happens next? Is it game over for AGW? Should we repeal the Climate Change Act and abandon our emission targets? (Spoiler alert: No and No;-).

Jun 26, 2020 at 6:11 PM Phil Clarke

Is your spoiler alert as unreliable as Mann's Hockey Stick?

Ah, just ad hom then. Thought so.

"Ah, just ad hom then. Thought so.
Jun 26, 2020 at 9:13 PM Phil Clarke"

Can you spot the ad homs in a Mann & Lewandowsky co authored "paper" known as Harvey et al?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/12/05/retraction-request-for-harvey-et-al-attack-paper-on-dr-susan-crockford/

For someone so enthusiastic about taking others to Court, but then so reluctant to provide any evidence at all, would Mann be happy to be the Defendant in Court should something arise from his lucrative earnings from ad homs?

Mann is a Walter Mitty.

The thing about Mitty is he was delusional.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Mann#Awards_and_honors

If Mann isn't delusional then he's cynically fraudulent - full circle to Mark Steyne.

Based on his reasons, included in full below, the dismissal was ultimately justified by glacial pace at which the proceedings moved, and what the judge characterized as an absence of action by Mann’s team.

The judge noted several periods of inaction between the commencement of the action in March, 2011 and the date of his decision.

While Mann submitted four binders worth of documentation to combat the motion to dismiss, the judge found there was “no evidence from the plaintiff (Mann) explaining the delay

Giaschi said the “inordinate delay” was not excusable, and that it prejudiced justice..

https://www.andrewlawton.ca/like-the-sword-of-damocles-judge-dismisses-michael-manns-lawsuit-against-tim-ball/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Mann#Awards_and_honors
Jun 26, 2020 at 10:53 PM Phil Clarke

Why can't he give evidence in Court and justify his awards and honours, now that he will have to disclose his earnings to those who think he cares about humanity?

Some award winning remarks from the moral low ground occupied by top Hockey Teamsters, including serial fabricator William M Connolley, Peter Gleick and Phil Jones

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/01/23/building-his-legacy-of-hate-peter-gleick-mocks-the-death-of-john-coleman/

[UPDATE: I speculated back in October whether Mann, a loser and a liar, would also prove a scofflaw and a deadbeat. Yes, he is. It is ten months since he lost at the BC Supreme Court and, despite Mr Justice Giaschi's order, Doctor Fraudpants has yet to pay Tim Ball a penny. So he's a fraudulent plaintiff in every respect. This scumbag has financially ruined Dr Ball, lost at trial, and refuses to pay up. Mann's conduct is appalling: it's no wonder so few climate scientists are willing to defend him.]

https://www.steynonline.com/10400/the-costs-of-mann-delay