The defendants brought a motion to strike portions of the testimony of two of the plaintiffs' witnesses at trial, arguing that the plaintiffs failed to meet their discovery obligations regarding certain documents.
The defendants contended that the corporate representatives lacked knowledge during discovery but provided more detailed evidence at trial, and that certain heavily redacted agreements were improperly used.
The Court dismissed the motion regarding the unredacted exhibits, finding no refusal to answer questions and noting the defendants failed to use procedural tools like undertakings or substitution to address the deficiencies.
However, the Court granted the motion to strike testimony related to the heavily redacted commercial agreements, holding that the minimal disclosure prevented their use to adduce further evidence at trial.
