at trial, Ford objected to Cantor’s testimony regarding tests included in the September 12 production, and the trial court sustained the objection. Even assuming that plaintiffs had sufficient time to prepare, therefore, any such preparation could assist them little at trial. Standing alone, the admission of the September 12 material may not have prejudiced plaintiffs to such a degree as to constitute reversible error. Combined with the exclusion of any testimony by Cantor in response, however, it resulted in an unfair inconsistency that denied plaintiffs of any opportunity to mitigate the prejudice caused by Ford’s untimeliness. Under these circumstances, the dilatory production of documents by Ford warrants a new trial. Cf. Mawby v. United States, 999 F.2d 1252, 1254 (8th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>); Piester v. International Bus. Machs., Corp.,
holding right to be fundamental recognizing fundamental fairness requires criminal defendants be granted a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense holding that an essential component of procedural fairness is an opportunity to be heard holding that fundamental fairness is flexible and calls for such procedural protections as the particular situation demands holding that fundamental fairness demands at least an opportunity to present rebuttal to surprise evidence