Finally, though not a recognized factor, the Court briefly addresses the Republic's assertion that it would be "highly unusual--if not unprecedented--to bar testimony from the only live fact witness offered by either party in a multibillion dollar damages trial." (Dkt. no. 461 at 2.) What is "highly unusual-- if not unprecedented--[is that] the only live fact witness offered by [the Republic] in a multibillion dollar damages trial" that will putatively swing the potential outcome by billions of dollars was never identified or disclosed. "Any claim that there is an injustice in not letting" Mr. Diez "testify at trial is baseless; as noted, [Mr. Diez] was never listed as a person whose testimony may be used at trial in" the Republic's "initial disclosures. . . and never listed at any other time through the close of discovery." Lexington Furniture Indus., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100723, at *4-5. Discovery in this matter lasted for almost two years. During that time the Republic made the strategic decision to develop a record and argue that May 8, 2014, was the relevant date and that Plaintiffs were entitled to nothing instead of arguing, as it does now, that Plaintiffs are entitled to four billion dollars instead of eight. Having done so, it cannot now cry about the unfairness of not being permitted to change its strategy, at Plaintiffs' expense, now that it cannot argue that Plaintiffs are not entitled to anything.
Balancing the relevant factors, the Court concludes that Mr. Diez's testimony must be precluded.