Bridgegate is in the rear view mirror, Gov. Chris Christie likes to say on the campaign trail.

But, meanwhile, in court, his lawyers are fiercely trying to fight a subpoena that would require additional disclosure of Christie's controversial Bridgegate investigation, which at last count, had cost New Jersey taxpayers in excess of $10 million. 

A short re-cap: after emails linked top Christie staffers to lane closures at the George Washington Bridge, Christie hired his own lawyer to investigate the matter.  The lawyer, Randy Mastro, exonerated Christie. Then, under pressure from lawmakers, Mastro released summaries of interviews conducted with scores of witnesses.  

Now lawyers for the defendants, Bridget Anne Kelly and Bill Baroni, want notes from those interviews. Mastro says there were no notes, but rather, witness interviews "were summarized electronically by one attorney while the interviews were being conducted and then edited electronically into a single, final version."  (The interviews, it's worth noting, often took place over the course of hours or days, by multiple attorneys.)

In court briefs, neither Kelly's nor Baroni's attorneys accept that there weren't any notes, and they want all the computer metadata showing when, how, and by whom the documents were written. 

Now Mastro is offering a new explanation.  His team didn't take notes because we were watching. In a letter dated October 9 to U.S. District Court Judge Susan Wigenton, Mastro wrote of his firm's "experience with extremely sensitive investigations and matters."  He went on to say that his team had "in mind the additional reality that a legislative committee investigation and related -- and often intense -- news media inquiries were ongoing."

Assemblyman John Wisniewski, co-chair of that legislative committee, boiled it down. "They didn't create that material so as not to turn it over," he said in a phone interview.

Mastro didn't respond to repeated requests for clarification.