The plaintiffs and defendants both brought motions to adduce fresh evidence in the context of an ongoing motion for an interlocutory injunction.
The court granted the plaintiffs' motion, finding that the alleged repetition of the impugned conduct was relevant to assessing the nature of the conduct and the appropriate remedial response in a dynamic marketplace situation.
The court also granted the defendants' motion to adduce fresh evidence, noting that since the plaintiffs were permitted to adduce fresh evidence, the defendants were entitled to adduce further responding evidence.
Costs were reserved to be addressed as part of the costs of the interlocutory injunction motion.
