At 08:49 PM 7/18/2011, Daniel Rocha wrote:
I am not sure if you could do this procedure in any place. In not all
places the accused is allowed to produce evidences against
his/herself.
> If Brown didn't say what Rossi claims, I'd
> suggest Brown may want those recordings *immediately* subpoenaed. If he did
> say that, and if what he said was, in fact, illegal, slinking quietly away
> may be in order. What I do *not* recommend is slinking away if he
didn't say
> those things, because he could easily suffer the damages anyway. Brown
> already requested that his blog comment be removed, because of the hassle,
> or something, already appearing.
First of all, I don't know where the meeting took place, actually.
Probably Italy, though. In the U.S., generally, given the
circumstances, discovery could start immediately, with Rossi
presented with interrogatories legally requiring him to provide those
"documents." (I.e., the recordings.) Whether Brown would want to do
this, of course, depends on the situation. Who is the "accused"?
Rossi is accusing Brown of malfeasance or worse, it looks like. If
that's not true, then Rossi may have libelled Brown, and Brown could
have a cause of action. If it's true, that's another story. Brown
could still require disclosure, even if it's true, but it might be a Bad Idea!
If prosecutors see this, and think that a crime was committed, they
may themselves go to Rossi and demand the recordings.
