Saying that you will agree to a continuance on a condition and having the court order the condition to be met are two completely different things.
If things are straightforward, the defense attorney should state them in a straightforward way. Instead, it seems to be the plaintiff that is making fairly clear statements.
Again, if there IS a court order, it should clear up the confusion fairly quickly. The fact that the defense isn’t waving around such an order says a lot to me.
No doubt the plaintiff can afford the best lawyer. But I’m still waiting to see the paper rather than the spin I’ve seen thus far. I tend not to think well of folks who appear to be trying to pull the wool over my eyes.
“Saying that you will agree to a continuance on a condition and having the court order the condition to be met are two completely different things.”
Thanks for your comments.
If what you say is correct then Mann agreed to provide the data. This was probably in response to Mann’s not fulfilling a prior discovery request.
Mann later reneged on his agreement.
The disagreement about what the court ordered is probably a dispute over specificity and completeness of information.
I am only guessing because the complete information was not in the article.