Instead of objecting, the lawyer for JG was free while responding to take issue with that point. He didn't seem to focus on it, or maybe didn't want to dignify it somehow. I found his emphasis on the statute for former LE, to protect their phone records or whatever, a little odd. I was sort of wondering what happened to D. Cohen, who was representing JG before. The argument was all so disjointed and confusing, with the judge mixing up who was who, etc. It wasn't really the lawyer's fault. He was citing case law like crazy and the judge thought he was someone else half the time. I think Judge S was overcome with the fog of JB. I hope they fight on and protect most of JG's records. The others, too.
It's clear the defense is fishing for anything they can make look suspicious or unsavory or even slightly questionable, so they can suggest one of these people is the guilty party - either AH, RM, JG or RK, whoever. It's pretty obvious, though still disgusting. How they plan to weave it with the existing variations of the Imaginanny story, who knows.
The sad part is that LE did have to take a look at all these people initially simply because they knew Casey A and had been around her in recent months. Sadly for him, JG was sort of an early alibi, with his memory of the phone calls with Casey, and he was friend enough to find it hard to believe she might have harmed Caylee. At times CA seems to suggest that he might have helped Casey, or controlled her in some Svengali manner. No idea if the defense really has such a theory. They most likely don't know, either. That's why they want to fish through his phone records, to see where he was at certain times, so they know when he couldn't or could have done certain things, been certain places. They probably need some facts in order to hone any false accusation they might make. With some of the others, there is the PR trip issue. Toss in the watching of a Zanny (still, per CA) in PR, blah, blah. More fishing.
I doubt they will reach an agreement, so I hope JB will have to make a cogent argument in writing, for each person, as to why their information is material.