“there tends to be a lot of paperwork generated between the issuance of a subpoena and a ruling on a contempt motion.”
From the article:
“Michael Mann moved for an adjournment of the trial scheduled for February 20, 2017. We had little choice because Canadian courts always grant adjournments before a trial in their belief that an out of court settlement is preferable. We agreed to an adjournment with conditions. The major one was that he [Mann] produce all documents including computer codes by February 20th, 2017. He failed to meet the deadline.”
The facts seem straightforward. Refusing to provide information ordered by the court is contempt.
However, I have seen things occur in courts that would strain the credibility of even the most cynical.
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.