when none exists.” Thus, it appears that the only documents possessed by defendants relating to this issue were produced in discovery nearly a year ago on August 18, 2003. These invoices state that they are for a “notary fee for witness closing” and list plaintiff and her ex-husband as the customer. This evidence was sufficient to alert plaintiff of the possibility that further evidence might exist in this case pertaining to the Equity 2000 & Associates invoices. It certainly cannot be said that any failure to disclose this evidence on the part of defendants substantially interfered with plaintiffs ability to pursue this line of evidence because plaintiffs counsel apparently chose not to follow up on this evidence promptly thereafter. See, e.g., Woodworker’s Supply, 170 F.3d at 993-94 (<HOLDING>). The evidence reflects, at most, that
holding that the trial court did not err by granting defendants motion for summary judgment holding that plaintiffs did not have standing because they did not sue the party with the clear ability to act holding that trial court did not err holding the district court did not err in denying the defendants rule 60b3 motion where the defendant had an opportunity to cure any prejudice because the plaintiffs failure to disclose evidence did not interfere with the defendants ability to proceed holding that the district court did not err by concluding that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion for continuance motion to withdraw and motion for reconsideration and rehearing