"Hizzoner" Giuliani Cannot Suddenly Spring Up -- With Surprise Witnesses In Manhattan, Come Thursday...

He will lose come this Thurday, in his bench trial before the able USDC Judge Liman in Manhattan. That is certain. His right to offer evidence has been largely curtailed via his own lies and omissions, as we've repeatedly noted.

And here is the order setting ground rules, well-reasoned. Here's that opinion in full -- and a bit:

. . . .In deciding whether to exclude a witness from testifying as a sanction for a violation of Rule 26, the court considers the Softel factors: “(1) the party’s explanation for the failure to comply with the [disclosure requirement]; (2) the importance of the testimony of the precluded witness[es]; (3) the prejudice suffered by the opposing party as a result of having to prepare to meet the new testimony; and (4) the possibility of a continuance.” Patterson v. Balsamico, 440 F.3d 104, 117 (2d Cir. 2006) (quoting Softel, Inc. v. Dragon Med. & Scientific Commc’ns, Inc., 118 F.3d 955, 961 (2d Cir. 1997)). “Preclusion is considered ‘a drastic remedy’ that is generally disfavored within the District.” Rosado v. Soriano, 2021 WL 4192863, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2021) (quoting Rivera v. United Parcel Serv., 325 F.R.D. 542, 548 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)). “Before the extreme sanction of preclusion may be used by the district court, a judge should inquire more fully into the actual difficulties which the violation causes, and must consider less drastic responses.” Outley v. City of New York, 837 F.2d 587, 591 (2d Cir. 1988). There is no serious dispute that Defendant violated Rule 26(a)(1). . . .

Defendant failed to include the Third-Party Witnesses in the initial disclosures and failed to amend those disclosures to include Placa’s name until December 23, 2024 (and failed to ever name Goodman). He also failed to include telephone numbers as required by Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(i). His failures were not substantially justified or harmless. Defendant offers no justification or explanation for the failure to identify Ryan, Placa, or Goodman. Defendant proposes to offer Ryan and Placa to testify to his alleged relocation from New York City to Palm Beach. Dkt. No. 157. But he does not offer any reason why, if those persons have relevant information, he would not have known the information and have formed the view that they might be used as witnesses at the time of the November 4 initial disclosures. . . .

What a. . . putz.

["Hizzoner" has filed what he calls an "interlocutory appeal", from this evidence non-admission opinion, to the Second Circuit. But trial will occur this week And he will lose in both courts -- evidentiary matters are to be appealed only after judgment.] Onward, to Thursday -- and his shellacking.

He loses the Florida condo, is my experienced bet.

नमस्ते