Stunting, perhaps?
Wasn't their alleged rationale that there were issues to litigate regarding the defense observing the tests? It's interesting that the prosecution is now, suddenly, interested is having all future evidentiary motions filed under seal. They didn't seem too concerned about that before they got kicked around the room during the prelim.
Game playing and "football hiding" usually goes on on both sides in these things, but it's generally not only useless, but counterproductive when counsel for the other side knows how to handle it. I don't think the D.A. has figured out quite what the fact he's not playing with the local yokels anymore means.
Another sort of interesting issue is the comment during the defense response to the motion for an investigation of defense "leaks" that during a prior inquiry into sheriff's department leaks the DA's office had refused to conduct the investigation because of animosity between the two agencies.
Taking a case to trial when you're not getting along with the agency providing the witnesses isn't the most ideal of circumstances.
Gonna need lots of popcorn for this one...
1. First rule of law: Never ask a question you don't already know the answer to.
2. If they do ask, and get the results it is not Kobe DNA - the prosecution will be obligated to forward the test results to the defense.
3. The prosecution has an inclination that they might find non-kobe DNA on their victim - (what other explanation is there?)