Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mistwell" data-source="post: 3699184" data-attributes="member: 2525">Lets say there is a 10% chance they are wrong, and 90% chance they are correct.Why would they want the audit if they think they can win without it?  Why risk a 1 in 10 chance of a massive precedent being set that could have a devastating impact on not just this matter but dozens of other projects they have done?They could be very confident they audit would show they are correct, and yet still logically oppose an audit.It's what I would advice them to do if I were representing them.  You don't do an audit, even if you think you will be fine.  There is no reason to risk it.Heck, one easy way to figure out what the defense is going to do in any case is ask if the plaintiff wants it to happen.  If the plaintiff wants it to happen, odds are defense will oppose it, if for nothing else simply because plaintiffs want it to happen.  It's folly to assume the defense doesn't want to do something because they are hiding things.  Motivation is often a heck of a lot more shallow than that.  If you want to get to a good settlement, the advantage goes to the defense the longer things get dragged out.</blockquote>