discovery rules provide an independent and sufficient grounds for a new trial. On retrial, Ford may only present evidence produced up to and including September 7, 1996, the discovery cut-off date. The parties, however, may stipulate to allow both Cantor’s testimony and Ford’s supplemental productions, if otherwise admissible. C. Directe per. 558, 512 A.2d 507, 515 (Ct.App.Div.), cert. denied, 107 N.J. 48, 526 A.2d 138 (1986) (requiring plaintiff to prove that the subsequent substantial alteration was foreseeable, but requiring defendant to establish the alteration as an intervening superseding cause or sole proximate cause of the accident). A majority of courts, however, follow the approach best described by the federal district court in Southwire v. Beloit E. Corp., 37 (Okla.1992) (<HOLDING>); Fenley v. Rouselle Corp., 531 So.2d 304
recognizing the significance of control in strict products liability recognizing products liability and products actions based on negligence as part of the general maritime law recognizing that substantial change is a defense to a products liability claim recognizing breach of contract action for destruction of evidence needed in products liability ease recognizing products liability concepts as part of general maritime law