Attorneys representing Reade, Collin, and Dave have filed a motion that the defendants are avoiding discovery in the civil lawsuit.
Durham et al are up to their old dance routine doing the "Durham Sidestep." We saw this repeatedly in the long and tortuously process of obtaining the exculpatory evidence which Nifong and the DPD withheld. Eventually it was discovered by Defense attorney Brad Bannon that Nifong and company had hidden DNA evidence from the defense.
Is it happening again?
The Plaintiffs in this case are the three innocent young men who were arrested, indicted, and publicly vilified on false charges of rape, first-degree sexual assault, and kidnapping in the Duke Lacrosse Case in 2006. Although this case has been pending for more than eight months, discovery has yet to begin because the City of Durham and other Defendants have refused to confer with Plaintiffs as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). These Defendants effectively have granted themselves an indefinite stay of discovery in contravention of Rule 26(f)’s express requirement that parties confer and commence discovery “as soon as practicable” after a complaint is filed. Defendants have made no showing that conferring with Plaintiffs is not “practicable,” nor can they satisfy the heavy burden necessary to justify a stay of discovery. Their refusal to permit discovery risks the loss of critical evidence as memories fade and witnesses relocate. Their refusal also will improperly and unnecessarily prolong this proceeding in violation of the policies of the Federal and Local Rules. RULE 26(f) Motion
Hat Tip: Tidbits, Walt-in-Durham