Andrew's lawyers won't have to fight anything as no UK court will subpoena him, ar least not on such a weak case as that one.
I'm not sure how it works in Britain, but here in the U.S. when we talk about a court "issuing" a subpoena, that's really a misnomer. The attorney gets blank subpoena forms from the clerk of the court and fills them out, serves them and files them back in court. The court is only involved if the person served moves to quash it, and then there has to be good grounds. A "weak" case (nobody knows if she has a strong libel claim or not) is generally not grounds for it, nor is "hey, I'm a prince." But since Britain is the jurisdiction that would have to issue the subpoena,not sure how it works there.
Courts are not supposed to look at the underlying merits of a case when determining these procedural issues. Some do, but this is more likely in a state court, not a federal case. Judges are much more likely to play by the rules there. The rules are, until a case is thrown out on the merits, even the most odious get the same discovery and procedural rights as the next.
If Roberts wants Andrew's deposition, she has to ask the federal court to ask the British court. It's the British court who determines if he gets subpoenaed to appear somewhere in Britain for a deposition. I'd imagine US and British courts do this with some regularity. If Britain grants these requests pro forma, I don't think it fair that Andrew get special treatment. If Britain exercises some discretion in such requests, then we have a different kettle of fish here.
My point is, it does not matter if Roberts has made the whole thing up at this point. If the ordering of his deposition in Britain is a perfunctory matter, he could very well be deposed in this case.
Thanks all for your input. We really don't 'Do' that many civil libel suits here so I am not really au fait with the US Federal or State, criminal or civil, legislative procedures.
However, it just seems to me that this woman is coming at the situation again, just using another angle, her case having been dismissed in her first suit.
BTW is the other potential "witness" from the first suit being touted as another "witness" in this second bite of the apple.
Marg, there are some jurors who will see it as you do too. This is why most cases settle before trial. Juries can be wild cards.
The second witness - complaints almost never detail who the witnesses are, etc. It's just statement of the allegations, such as Maxwell said this and that about me, and it's untrue (lawyers can drag that one out for pages). Evidence and witnesses come later, and generally the discovery process before trial is not something that's part of the public record until much later. Nobody in the media has accessed it from the online federal system and published it, although they can - it's public record.
All of this right now is academic. Likely Maxwell has not yet been served or accepted a waiver of service. Once she has she has time to answer. Most likely this will be in the form of a motion to dismiss, which will entail trading of briefs which take time to prepare. Then possible oral argument. Then the court will take its time to issue an order on it, then possibly appeals, starting the whole process all over. The issue of Andrew's deposition is at least a year away, and I do believe this case will either be dismissed or settle before we get there.