The problem (if you want to call it that) is civil discovery. It takes a long time. You have to make the other side cough up documents, review them, interview witnesses, check their stories out, find corroboration, then take depositions. Those depositions generally "lead to the discovery of admissible evidence," so you rinse, and repeat. Then there are experts to hire, interview, depose.
Five years is not a long time for a case like this, with hundreds of witnesses and many disputed facts, plus a core issue of 'intent' which is very difficult to prove.
Also part of the problem (and this is a problem) is legal malpractice claims. Lawyers turn over every doggone stone for the same reason that doctors order tons and tons of unnecessary tests -- to cover their hindquarters in the event of a malpractice suit.
We certainly don't want to go back to the pre-Civil Practice Act days, when it was 'trial by ambush' with no discovery and demurrer pleading. (I can just barely remember those days, which will inform you that I am ancient.) But discovery abuse could be ameliorated if lawyers could get some protection from abusive malpractice claims.
In this particular case - that I have been following and writing about for nearly six years - the judge (James Beaty, Jr., NC Middle District) is allowing things to drag out far too long. I don’t trust him at all.
Personally I see little room for Duke’s officers to stand on.
Their intent is obvious and their actions speak for themselves. I only see their dragging this case out as doing more harm than good to the university.