So is it safe to say that the jury hasn't seen the Fish testimony yet? In the rush to review, I assumed this was a reactive motion from our side in response to something that took place in the courtroom already. From what you write, I'm now assuming the HTC lawyers proposed to use this testimony today, and breifed our side and the Judge in preparation, and then our side then gave them the ol' "Hey, hold on one second there buddy! That's not what was agreed to..."

Obviously, if that's the case, then the Judge will have addressed this proactively, and either seen no problem with HTC's move, or told them to pound sand and provide as originally agreed. Is that a correct assumption?