The plaintiff brought a motion to strike evidence tendered by the defendant in advance of the penalty phase of a contempt trial.
The defendant sought to introduce fresh engineering evidence to argue that the original judgment regarding surface water drainage was based on incorrect factual findings.
The court granted the motion and struck the evidence, finding that the affidavits contained improper argument and hearsay, failed to comply with expert report rules, and did not meet the test for fresh evidence.
Furthermore, the court held that allowing the evidence would permit a collateral attack on the final judgment, violate issue estoppel, and constitute an abuse of process.
