The defendants moved to strike the plaintiffs’ pleadings for failure to comply with a production order requiring an accounting of revenues and supporting documents relating to the exploitation of certain patented shoe insole technology.
The plaintiffs had initially failed to meet the deadline and their early attempts at compliance were deficient, but they later produced extensive supplementary disclosure and accounting materials.
The court held that although the plaintiffs’ record‑keeping was poor, they had made earnest efforts and had achieved substantial compliance with the production order.
The court declined to exercise its discretion to strike the pleadings, emphasizing the preference for deciding civil disputes on their merits and the absence of wilful non‑compliance.
The plaintiffs’ cross‑motion seeking leave to revive a previously adjourned summary judgment motion was also dismissed because the action was imminently scheduled for trial and the motion could disrupt the trial schedule.
