show "reason to believe" that the university held relevant material, or meet the statute requirements to state "the nature of the conduct" so that "any reasonable person could glean what Dr. Mann did to violate the statute". The court completely rejected the demands, but left it open for the "Commonwealth to proceed according to the law". At this point, Cuccinelli could either rewrite the civil investigative demand or appeal the decision. Mann called the ruling a victory "for all scientists who live in fear that they may be subject to a motivated witch hunt when their research findings prove inconvenient to powerful vested interests." Second Civil Investigative Demand On September 29, 2010, Cuccinelli filed a revised CID in order to address some of the shortcomings identified in the August 30 ruling. The main changes were narrowing the case to the only one of the five original grants which was not a federal grant and stating the specific allegation of fraud: he referred to the Mann, Bradley and Hughes 1998 and 1998 "hockey stick" hemispheric climate reconstructions (MBH98 and MBH99), and said "Specifically, but without limitation, some of the conclusions of the papers demonstrate a complete lack of rigor regarding the statistical analysis of the alleged data, meaning that the result reported lacked statistical significance without a specific statement to that effect." Mann noted that the grant concerned was for research into the interaction between the atmosphere and vegetation in the African savannah, and did not relate to climate reconstructions. The University of Virginia announced that it would fight the request, and stated that resisting the Attorney General's demands had already cost it $350,000 in legal fees, paid from private funds. On October 20, 2010, the University of Virginia filed papers requesting that Cuccinelli’s latest demand be “set aside” as well. UVa’s lawyers pointed out that Cuccinelli’s latest CID recites verbatim the first 15 pages of the attorney general’s brief in opposition to UVa’s petition to dismiss the previous CIDs. They stated that the text had already been considered by the court and “found deficient.” Virginia Supreme Court Ruling In March, 2011, the Supreme Court of Virginia decided to hear Cuccinelli's appeal. Both sides were expected to file legal briefs outlining their cases in the spring, and a hearing was to be held at some point after those documents were received. On 2 March 2012 the Supreme Court ruled that Cuccinelli