Despite coach Bill Belichick and the Patriots re-entering the public-relations quagmire of the spy saga, deciphering the depth and breadth of their electronic taping habits still largely rests with a former video assistant being prodded to talk from several angles.

Lawyers representing several interested parties - the ex-Patriots employee Matt Walsh, plaintiffs in a wide-ranging lawsuit filed last week, a U.S. senator and the NFL - traded phone calls Tuesday to discuss what happens next.

At issue: crafting an agreement that would allow Walsh, a former video assistant with the team, to share his information.

Walsh's lawyer, Michael Levy of the Washington-based McKee Nelson firm, spoke with lawyers for the NFL. He also talked to lawyers who filed a civil-action lawsuit against the Patriotslast week. The civil-action lawyers said they spoke to a lawyer from Sen. Arlen Specter's office.

Indemnification remained the major issue. There was no timetable set, though threats of a subpoena for Walsh in connection with the lawsuit could create greater urgency.

Belichick and the Patriots made their first detailed comments on the controversy Sunday in The Boston Globe, with firm denials of secretive taping of a pre-Super Bowl walk-through and swipes at Walsh's credibility.

Belichick addressed and denied a report in The Boston Herald, which quoted an unnamed source and accused the Patriots of recording the Rams' walk-through the day before the teams played in Super Bowl XXXVI in 2002. The Patriots won, 20-17.

"In my entire coaching career, I've never seen another team's practice film prior to playing that team," Belichick told The Boston Globe. "I have never authorized, or heard of, or even seen in any way, shape, or form any other team's walk-through."

It was the latest salvo in the battle over past videotaping practices of the Patriots.

In September, the Patriots were caught taping the Jets' defensive signals on the sideline. Belichick said he misinterpreted an NFL rule from the league's constitution and bylaws, believing that such taping was allowed provided the information was not used within the same game.

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, citing a different rule from the league's Game Operation's Manual - clarified in a letter to coaches in Sept. 2006 - fined Belichick $500,000, the Patriots $250,000, and docked the club a first-round draft choice.

But it has only been in recent weeks that details emerged hinting at the issue's depth (dating, perhaps, throughout Belichick's head-coaching career, which began with the Browns in 1991) and breadth (possibly having an effect on dozens of games, postseason included).

The lawsuit filed in New Orleans, site of the 2002 Super Bowl, claims the Patriots fraudulently won the championship. It was filed on behalf of the former Rams safety Willie Gary, two Super Bowl ticket holders and a Rams seat-license holder, representing three classes of plaintiffs, all with ties to the Rams.

Hugh Campbell, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said the suit would be amended to include all NFL players and team employees, fans and seat-license holders who may have been affected by the Patriots' illicitpractices.

"I think we're all trying to get to the same ultimate goal, and that is to get the information," Campbell said.

Belichick's denial about taping the Rams six years ago turned the focus back on Walsh, who fired by the Patriots in 2003, according to the team. He has hinted that he has critical information in the case, possibly including a tape of the walk-through.

Which faction, if any, that gets Walsh to talk may determine how much information becomes public. The NFL, for example, would seem to be more motivated to meet privately with Walsh. But Congress and the courts could make his information public.