The plaintiffs moved to remove the defendant's designated representative for examination for discovery, Peter Hill, due to an irreconcilable conflict of interest.
Hill had a lucrative consulting contract with one of the incumbent telecommunications providers whose conduct was central to the action, and his contract required him to prefer his client's interests.
The court found that Hill's contractual obligations and his evasive testimony during discovery demonstrated a preference for the incumbent's interests over his duties as a witness, rendering him a demonstrably unsatisfactory representative.
The motion was granted, and Hill was ordered to be replaced by Kelly Gillis or another suitable witness.
