The plaintiffs brought a motion to vary a timetable order that required the action to be set down for trial by October 31, 2016, failing which it would be dismissed.
The defendants opposed the motion, citing delay and non-compensable prejudice.
The court found that the delay was adequately explained by the voluminous video disclosure and log books that needed to be reviewed.
The court also found no non-compensable prejudice to the defendants.
The motion was granted, a new timetable was set, and the plaintiffs were ordered to pay $750 for the reproduction of digital video.