 demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer) writes...






First, people should be aware that Brett's (no last name listed) 
posts on bit.listserv.politics indicate that he has been  
hostile toward GM's hiring policies and to the Moseley verdict 
when it came out.  Equal opportunity disagreement, I guess.  :-)

My guess, without seeing the judge's opinion, is that GM's motion 
was denied on due diligence grounds.  Otherwise, a party to a 
case could always keep one or two semi-credible witnesses in 
reserve to spring if they lose.  Not exactly a way to promote 
repose.

						Daniel Reitman