Or not. Most of the stories on the subject that I've seen here on FR appear to have been written by folks with an agenda who couldn't find a courthouse with a map.
I have no idea what Canadian law is on the subject, but in the US, there tends to be a lot of paperwork generated between the issuance of a subpoena and a ruling on a contempt motion.
If any writer would post pleadings, instead of spin, maybe we could figure out what is going on. If there are a mountain of pleadings with battling Motions for Protective Orders and Motions for contempt, then maybe there is some fire. But given the strong statement by the 'scientist's' attorney, I suspect that he is the one closest to the truth.
Until then, I'm taking all of the bloggers with a grain of salt, although I'll charitably call it ignorance rather than intentional falsehood.
Canada has fewer lawyers. They don’t need to generate so much make work.
I tend to agree....it ain’t over until the fat lady sings.
In this case, Mann’s lawyers had to suspect this requirement to show the data would come up, and he had to know this day would come. The court is in a tough position because if they let Mann off this data requirement...there is a massive hole in the whole case.
I’m kinda betting that no contempt of court episode will occur but the judge will urge both parties to just quietly settle and end the mess.
“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.